public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/109940] [14 Regression] ICE in decide_candidate_validity since g:53dddbfeb213ac4ec39f550aa81eaa4264375d2c
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 19:13:17 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-109940-4-X1JEcVB7qs@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-109940-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109940

rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Guess that makes it mine. :)  It's been a few years since I wrote
this code, but I vaguely remember hitting the problem that the
DF walk orders weren't the “natural” ones, and having to work
around it.

The code iterates backwards over what was the DF_BACKWARD postorder,
which I think was the workaround.  Now that DF_BACKWARD (correctly)
gives an RPO over a backward traversal, and DF_FORWARD is a true
forward RPO, the fix will probably be to switch from using DF_BACKWARD
to DF_FORWARD.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-05-23 19:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-23  8:28 [Bug c/109940] New: ICE in decide_candidate_validity, bisected to peter.waller at arm dot com
2023-05-23  8:41 ` [Bug c/109940] [14 Regression] ICE in decide_candidate_validity, bisected ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-23  8:44 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/109940] [13 Regression] ICE in decide_candidate_validity since g:53dddbfeb213ac4ec39f550aa81eaa4264375d2c tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-23 15:52 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/109940] [14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-23 19:13 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-05-24  8:53 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-24  8:56 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-24 10:58 ` peter.waller at arm dot com

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-109940-4-X1JEcVB7qs@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).