public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/109596] [14 Regression] Lots of guality testcase fails on x86_64 after r14-162-gcda246f8b421ba
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:50:06 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-109596-4-XJGumCo09o@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-109596-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109596

--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> BTW, just curious, r14-162 had:
>        /* Ensure that the header will have just the latch as a predecessor
>          inside the loop.  */
> -      if (!single_pred_p (exit->dest))
> +      if (!single_pred_p (nonexit->dest))
>         {
> -         header = split_edge (exit);
> +         header = split_edge (nonexit);
>           exit = single_pred_edge (header);
>         }
> chunk, shouldn't that be nonexit = single_pred_edge (header); or is that
> line correct?

Regarding that, e.g. gcc.c-torture/compile/pr70199.c testcase at -O1 -g shows
both cases, once where single_pred_p (nonexit->dest) and once where
!single_pred_p (nonexit->dest) and we split the nonexit edge.
Or the !single_pred_p case is also in c-c++-common/gomp/pr59917-2.c,
gcc.dg/torture/pr83685.c.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-03-20 11:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-23  1:46 [Bug testsuite/109596] New: [14 Regression] Lots of testcases " haochen.jiang at intel dot com
2023-04-24  7:06 ` [Bug testsuite/109596] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-12 10:58 ` [Bug testsuite/109596] [14 Regression] Lots of guality testcase " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-19 14:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-19 15:23 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-19 15:27 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-19 15:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-19 15:47 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-19 15:58 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-19 16:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-19 22:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-20 11:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2024-04-10  7:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-11  6:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-11  9:11 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-11  9:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-12 18:14 ` carlos.seo at linaro dot org
2024-04-12 18:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-12 18:24 ` carlos.seo at linaro dot org
2024-04-13 11:36 ` haochen.jiang at intel dot com
2024-04-15 18:53 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.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=bug-109596-4-XJGumCo09o@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --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).