From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26855 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2014 18:09:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26817 invoked by uid 55); 7 Oct 2014 18:09:16 -0000 From: "law at redhat dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug bootstrap/63432] [5 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure with bootstrap-lto Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 18:09:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: law at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00496.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432 --- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law --- On 10/04/14 13:29, Teresa Johnson wrote: >> Jeff, what is intended here - should we not be threading both of these paths? > > I have a patch to make the mark_threaded_blocks checking of paths work > regardless of the ordering of paths in the vec. This fixes the > failure. This seems like a better solution. It'll decrease unnecessary block copying. > > The other approach is whenever we finish threading a path, go through > the vec of remaining paths and update the edges for any that have been > affected by the threading and that should instead include the > duplicated edges. That'd probably work too, but I suspect there's not much, if any, benefit to keeping both paths. Jeff