Development plan *ducks* (Re: Loop optimizer issues)

[Jan Hubicka]

> 
> On Tuesday, Jul 29, 2003, at 13:00 US/Eastern, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> 
> >>>For example, bug 11131, a mainline regression, doesn't look related 
> >>>to
> >>>unit-at-a-time.  But I just found out that your unit-at-a-time patch
> >>>seems to have caused that bug to re-appear.  It's a pessimizes-code 
> >>>bug,
> >>>so regtesting could have missed it.  Now in this case there's a test
> >>>case for it, but who knows what else may be wrong that we don't know
> >>>about yet?
> >>Well, this is the case of about any GCC patch.
> >>I remember I fixed template1.C failure once already.  I will try to
> >>figure out what happent to the patch.  I remmeber that it was related 
> >>to
> >>some hack in C++ cannot_inline function.
> >Hmm, the testcase does not appear to fail in my setup (i686-linux too 
> >as
> >in the PR that is quite weird).  If it fails for you can you please 
> >just
> >step into cp_cannot_inline_tree_fn and figure out why it fails in foo1?
> >The patch I was fixing was actually different problem and is already in
> >the tree.
> 
> 
> cp_cannot_inline_tree_fn does not even get called.
OK, I seee it is compiled with -O2.  I am enabling unit-at-a-time for
testing at -O2 that is why I don't see it.  I am working on it.

Honza
> 
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
>