public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/65270] [5 regression] ICF needs to match TYPE attributes on memory accesses
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 18:23:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-65270-4-FJcg5mdXya@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-65270-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |---
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Lets reopen this. I agree with other type flags - they seem safe except for
TYPE_ATTRIBUTES of functions I will add compare of today.
> No. But you can't compare restrict qualification by looking at a memory
> reference pair from function A and function B. You'd have to compare
> all data dependences somehow.
>
> You could get some cases by comparing function parameter types specially
> (but global vars also have an issue, as well as decl-by-reference
> aggregate parameters).
Would it be enough to
- require match on arguments/return value types (that should handle function
parameters as well as
- require match on all global variable types
> It seems to me that ICF isn't quite ready for prime time. Let's disable
> it by default for now, ok?
I also read the discussion on IRC and discussed with Jeff.
ICF has triggered interesting issues in alias/thunks areas. For a first time we
output a lot of non-MI thunks on main targets and expand_thunk was getting
things wrong in a nasty ways. ICF also produce a lot of aliases and excercise
symbol table code otherwise rarely used. Here I think it is valuable we fixed
those bugs that were semi-latent for years. I believe we are approaching
steady state - at the moment we do not have any other ICF related PR open. Jeff
suggested to wait 48 hours.
This PR is a result of my code audit I did over weekend. I fully leave the
decision with you. I agree ICF is causing a lot of issues late in release and
disabling it is a safe option. On the other hand I would be happy to work to
get it fixed and working - it is quite useful optimization.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-03 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-02 0:49 [Bug ipa/65270] New: " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-02 8:58 ` [Bug ipa/65270] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-02 11:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-02 14:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-02 14:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-02 18:25 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-03 14:57 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-03-03 15:08 ` howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu
2015-03-03 17:24 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-03-03 18:23 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2015-03-03 20:38 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-04 9:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-04 9:45 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-03-04 10:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-04 11:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-04 11:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-04 18:21 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-05 0:11 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-05 0:21 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-05 0:42 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-05 8:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-05 9:40 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-03-05 9:42 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-03-05 9:45 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-03-05 11:30 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-05 19:47 ` [Bug ipa/65270] issues with merging memory accesses from different code paths hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-05 19:59 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-05 20:11 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-05 21:18 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-06 8:32 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-03-06 15:41 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-06 18:03 ` [Bug ipa/65270] [5 regression] " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-09 11:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-09 13:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-09 13:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-12 13:03 ` 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-65270-4-FJcg5mdXya@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).