public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/56466] [4.8 Regression] ICE in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1629 (loop with header n not in loop tree !) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:41:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-56466-4-OjcDOYh66j@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-56466-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56466 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-27 09:40:09 UTC --- RTL unrolling does excessive manual verify_loop_structure calls. I suppose we can either add an argument to verify_loop_structure to say whether to check only existing loops or remove the checking, or make sure to fixup loops. For sure checking the whole loop tree after processing one innermost loop is excessive: /* Depending on FLAGS, check whether to peel loops completely and do so. */ static void peel_loops_completely (int flags) { struct loop *loop; loop_iterator li; /* Scan the loops, the inner ones first. */ FOR_EACH_LOOP (li, loop, LI_FROM_INNERMOST) { ... if (loop->lpt_decision.decision == LPT_PEEL_COMPLETELY) { report_unroll_peel (loop, locus); peel_loop_completely (loop); #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING verify_loop_structure (); #endif } } I'd have a changed flag and do a single if (changed) fix_loop_structure (NULL); which also does the verification at the end. Same applies to the loop in the caller.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-27 9:41 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2013-02-26 17:42 [Bug tree-optimization/56466] New: " antoine.balestrat at gmail dot com 2013-02-26 18:01 ` [Bug tree-optimization/56466] [4.8 Regression] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-26 18:04 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-26 18:16 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-27 9:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2013-02-27 11:42 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/56466] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-28 10:14 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-28 10:15 ` mpolacek 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-56466-4-OjcDOYh66j@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: 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).