public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/19038] [4.0 Regression] out-of ssa causing loops to have more than one BB
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:49:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041230184917.32666.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041216155140.19038.dje@gcc.gnu.org>


------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-12-30 18:49 -------
(In reply to comment #33)
> Subject: Re:  [4.0 Regression] out-of ssa
>         causing loops to have more than one BB
> > > > Now if you think that PR is a trivial case that should be caught, then,
> > > show me why and I'll take a closer look.
> > 
> > The reason why it is not caught is because we don't cleanup the cfg while doing the
> > loop optimizations, this has been fixed already on the tcb.
> Can you be more precise how cleaning up the CFG during the loop
> optimizer affects the code that we see during out-of-ssa.  Specifically
> how does it affect PHI arguments on backedges and the proper marking
> of backedges in the CFG? 

It has nothing to do with out-of-ssa any more, sorry for not being clear but here are the chain
of events for the current problem.

We split the critial edges so when we try to create the IV (in iv-opts), we insert an instruction on the bb 
which is the empty and otherwise useless but if we had cleaned up the CFG before running IV-OPTS, we
would insert it right before the condition just like your patch does for out of ssa.

And now we have this extra bb that is not useless, out of ssa is going to use instead of using your new 
scheme.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19038


  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-12-30 18:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-12-16 15:52 [Bug rtl-optimization/19038] New: Loop header copying dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-16 21:39 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/19038] " dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-16 22:55 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-17  4:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-17  4:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-17  4:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-17  4:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-20 18:25 ` [Bug tree-optimization/19038] [4.0 Regression] out-of ssa causing loops to have more than one BB pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-20 19:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-20 19:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-20 19:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-22 19:03 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-23  2:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-23 15:19 ` dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-23 16:00 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-24 12:13 ` mustafa at il dot ibm dot com
2004-12-24 12:42 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-24 12:46 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-24 12:52 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-24 12:55 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-26  1:09 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-26 15:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-27 21:08 ` law at redhat dot com
2004-12-28  8:22 ` law at redhat dot com
2004-12-28  9:18 ` law at redhat dot com
2004-12-28 23:32 ` law at redhat dot com
2004-12-29 19:33 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-29 20:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-29 20:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-29 21:06 ` law at redhat dot com
2004-12-30 17:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-30 18:39 ` law at redhat dot com
2004-12-30 18:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2004-12-30 21:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-04  4:04 ` law at redhat dot com
2005-01-04  4:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-10 20:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-12 13:34 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2005-01-18  0:50 ` [Bug tree-optimization/19038] [4.0 Regression] ivopts " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-18  5:02 ` law at redhat dot com
2005-01-19 22:50 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-19 23:25 ` [Bug tree-optimization/19038] [4.0 Regression] out of ssa " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-19 23:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20  0:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20  0:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-20  1:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 13:18 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 13:22 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2005-01-21 13:27 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 13:29 ` [Bug tree-optimization/19038] [4.0 Regression] tree-ssa " steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 19:19 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-22  1:51 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-22 16:48 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-22 16:49 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20041230184917.32666.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).