From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 86194 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2016 23:01:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 86129 invoked by uid 89); 9 Sep 2016 23:01:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:4c2c X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 23:01:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FFF961E5B; Fri, 9 Sep 2016 23:01:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-116-111.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.111]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u89N1JuK018274; Fri, 9 Sep 2016 19:01:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] regrename: Don't run if function was separately shrink-wrapped To: Segher Boessenkool References: <7e74a019-d477-348f-2dc6-744e1db38f2f@redhat.com> <20160909204107.GC21356@gate.crashing.org> Cc: Bernd Schmidt , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, dje.gcc@gmail.com From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <14ff3e40-4c2c-7e8b-b822-07ff3575b771@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2016 23:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160909204107.GC21356@gate.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00562.txt.bz2 On 09/09/2016 02:41 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 12:31:31PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 06/08/2016 03:18 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >>> On 06/08/2016 03:47 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>>> + /* regrename creates wrong code for exception handling, if used >>>> together >>>> + with separate shrink-wrapping. Disable for now, until we have >>>> + figured out what exactly is going on. */ >>> >>> That needs to be figured out now or it'll be there forever. >> I suspect it's related to liveness computations getting out-of-wack with >> separate shrink wrapping. If that's the case, then the question in my >> mind is how painful is this going to be to fix in the df scanning code. > > I haven't been able to pin-point the failure. It happens for just a few > huge testcases. So I am hoping someone who understands regrename will > figure it out. I think that's likely going to fall onto you :-) We don't generally allow passes to just get disabled because some other pass causes them to generate the wrong code. Though I'm curious how you triggered this -- regrename isn't enabled by default (except for that brief window earlier this year...). Jeff