public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/53695] [4.8 Regression] ICE: in dfs_enumerate_from, at cfganal.c:1221 with -O2 -ftracer and labels/gotos
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:19:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-53695-4-XUK3wQjz2j@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-53695-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695

--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-08-23 09:19:04 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
> 
> --- Comment #16 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-23 08:53:04 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > Makes me wonder why the loop isn't recognized in the original test case...
> 
> Ah, maybe because bb3 has an abnormal predecessor and is therefore ignored as a
> potential loop header?
> 
>       /* If we have an abnormal predecessor, do not consider the
>          loop (not worth the problems).  */
>       if (bb_has_abnormal_pred (header))
>         continue;
> 
> Which brings things back to my question why this kind of loop header is
> rejected! :-)

Because gimple_split_edge doesn't like to split abnormal edges,
called via force_single_succ_latches ().  So we do definitely
not allow abnormal latch -> header edges.  Still abnormal loop entries
should be fine.  So,

Index: gcc/cfgloop.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/cfgloop.c       (revision 190613)
+++ gcc/cfgloop.c       (working copy)
@@ -400,24 +400,21 @@ flow_loops_find (struct loops *loops)
     {
       edge_iterator ei;

-      /* If we have an abnormal predecessor, do not consider the
-        loop (not worth the problems).  */
-      if (bb_has_abnormal_pred (header))
-       continue;
-
       FOR_EACH_EDGE (e, ei, header->preds)
        {
          basic_block latch = e->src;

-         gcc_assert (!(e->flags & EDGE_ABNORMAL));
-
          /* Look for back edges where a predecessor is dominated
             by this block.  A natural loop has a single entry
             node (header) that dominates all the nodes in the
             loop.  It also has single back edge to the header
             from a latch node.  */
          if (latch != ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR
-             && dominated_by_p (CDI_DOMINATORS, latch, header))
+             && dominated_by_p (CDI_DOMINATORS, latch, header)
+             /* We cannot make latches simple by splitting the
+                latch -> header edge if the latch edge is abnormal.  */
+             && (single_succ_p (latch)
+                 || !(e->flags & EDGE_ABNORMAL)))
            {
              /* Shared headers should be eliminated by now.  */
              SET_BIT (headers, header->index);

should "work".  But doesn't fix the testcase (of course).

Richard.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-08-23  9:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-16 11:23 [Bug middle-end/53695] New: " zsojka at seznam dot cz
2012-06-16 16:01 ` [Bug middle-end/53695] " hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2012-06-18  9:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-19 14:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-27 10:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-22  9:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-22 19:26 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-22 20:14 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-22 20:20 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-22 21:33 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-23  7:29 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23  7:37 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23  7:56 ` stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com
2012-08-23  8:07 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23  8:10 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23  8:49 ` stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com
2012-08-23  8:53 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-23  9:19 ` rguenther at suse dot de [this message]
2012-08-23  9:23 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23  9:44 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-23 11:00 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 11:22 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-19 13:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-26 11:58 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-29 14:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-29 14:33 ` rguenth 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-53695-4-XUK3wQjz2j@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).