public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/38740] [4.4 Regression] Incorrect delayed branch optimization Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:21:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20090128152058.31394.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-38740-276@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> ------- Comment #16 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 15:20 ------- The problem is -O0 together with -fdelayed-branch. Shouldn't we just reject it or silently not do dbr at !optimize? If it is really important to support (I don't see any rationale for it), then the problem is that ira.c only calls df_analyze after RA if -O1 and above: df_finish_pass (true); if (optimize > 1) df_live_add_problem (); df_scan_alloc (NULL); df_scan_blocks (); if (optimize) df_analyze (); timevar_pop (TV_IRA); } No other -O0 pass in between ira and dbr calls df_analyze and dbr itself can't call it, as the cfg is gone. So, if we really want to support this, either ira.c could /* -O0 -fdelayed-branch uses dataflow info during dbr pass, but uses it after the cfg is gone. Ensure it is updated even in that case. */ if (optimize || flag_delayed_branch) df_analyze (); or we could have some pass right before pass_free_cfg that would be gated on !optimize && flag_delayed_branch and would call df_analyze (). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38740
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-28 15:21 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2009-01-06 4:25 [Bug middle-end/38740] New: " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-06 4:27 ` [Bug middle-end/38740] " dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-01-06 13:24 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-06 13:27 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/38740] " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-06 14:57 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-01-07 17:27 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-01-08 4:15 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/38740] [4.4 Regression] " danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-12 15:02 ` carlos at systemhalted dot org 2009-01-12 18:01 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-01-17 22:34 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-18 23:02 ` dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-01-23 16:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-25 17:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-25 18:02 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 13:34 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 15:21 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message] 2009-01-28 16:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 16:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 18:20 ` vapier at gentoo dot org 2009-01-29 13:05 ` danglin 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=20090128152058.31394.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: linkBe 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).