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 middle-end/63186] [4.9/5 Regression] Undefined .L* symbols because of fnsplit
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 21:39:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-63186-4-oU9HTByVvg@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-63186-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63186

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
For the case when any of the bbs considered for being split (into
function.part.N) refers to a label which is defined in one of the basic blocks
that are not considered for split we already kind of have code to handle that,
the DECL_UID of the label is put into non_ssa_vars bitmap and then
verify_non_ssa_vars is called which if it sees a GIMPLE_LABEL with a label set
in non_ssa_vars bitmap will give up.  Unfortunately, verify_non_ssa_vars
doesn't walk all basic blocks that aren't being split off, but only those that
can be executed before reaching the split entry_bb.  In the testcase the label
is in a basic block that just returns afterwards.  So perhaps we'd need to
remember if we put any LABEL_DECL uids into non_ssa_vars bitmap and if yes, in
addition to what non_ssa_vars does right now also walk all other basic blocks
that would not be split away (just the labels at the start of each) and just
handle GIMPLE_LABELs for those.  Or do that always.

Not sure what is supposed to handle the case when a label anywhere in the
split_bbs would be referenced from the header basic blocks though.


  reply	other threads:[~2014-09-05 21:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-09-05 13:19 [Bug middle-end/63186] New: " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-05 21:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2014-09-08  0:35 ` [Bug middle-end/63186] " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-08  4:21 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
2014-09-08  9:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-11  6:47 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-19  9:25 ` dan at danny dot cz
2014-09-19 21:41 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-09-19 22:50 ` [Bug middle-end/63186] [4.9 " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-01 14:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-03  7:37 ` 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-63186-4-oU9HTByVvg@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).