From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29135 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2011 11:43:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 29117 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Nov 2011 11:43:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from anubis.se.axis.com (HELO anubis.se.axis.com) (195.60.68.12) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:43:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by anubis.se.axis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B6CB19E23; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:43:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from anubis.se.axis.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (anubis.se.axis.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id XAxaymAylf9F; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:43:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from seth.se.axis.com (seth.se.axis.com [10.0.2.172]) by anubis.se.axis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E38F19E22; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:43:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from ignucius.se.axis.com (ignucius.se.axis.com [10.88.21.50]) by seth.se.axis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC553E0CE; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:43:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from ignucius.se.axis.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ignucius.se.axis.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Debian-2woody1) with ESMTP id pAABh7F6007690; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:43:07 +0100 Received: (from hp@localhost) by ignucius.se.axis.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Debian-2woody1) id pAABh70b007686; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:43:07 +0100 Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:29:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201111101143.pAABh70b007686@ignucius.se.axis.com> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson To: richard.guenther@gmail.com CC: hp@axis.com, amodra@gmail.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, bernds@codesourcery.com In-reply-to: (message from Richard Guenther on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:22:56 +0100) Subject: Re: Revert "PowerPC shrink-wrap support 3 of 3" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg01409.txt.bz2 > From: Richard Guenther > Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:22:56 +0100 > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson > wrote: > >> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson > >> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:55:59 +0100 > > > >> > From: Alan Modra > >> > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:33:40 +0100 > >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 12:57:22AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > >> > >> >         * function.c (bb_active_p): Delete. > >> >         (dup_block_and_redirect, active_insn_between): New functions. > >> >         (convert_jumps_to_returns, emit_return_for_exit): New functions, > >> >         split out from.. > >> >         (thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns): ..here.  Delete > >> >         shadowing variables.  Don't do prologue register clobber tests > >> >         when shrink wrapping already failed.  Delete all last_bb_active > >> >         code.  Instead compute tail block candidates for duplicating > >> >         exit path.  Remove these from antic set.  Duplicate tails when > >> >         reached from both blocks needing a prologue/epilogue and > >> >         blocks not needing such. > >> >         * ifcvt.c (dead_or_predicable): Test both flag_shrink_wrap and > >> >         HAVE_simple_return. > >> >         * bb-reorder.c (get_uncond_jump_length): Make global. > >> >         * bb-reorder.h (get_uncond_jump_length): Declare. > >> >         * cfgrtl.c (rtl_create_basic_block): Comment typo fix. > >> >         (rtl_split_edge): Likewise.  Warning fix. > >> >         (rtl_duplicate_bb): New function. > >> >         (rtl_cfg_hooks): Enable can_duplicate_block_p and duplicate_block. > >> > >> This (a revision in the range 181187:181189) broke build for > >> cris-elf like so: > >> See PR51051. > > > > Given that this also broke arm-linux-gnueabi, a primary > > platform, and Alan being absent until the 15th according to a > > message on IRC, I move to revert r181188. > > Is there a PR for the arm issue? It's covered by the same PR, see comment #1. I've now updated the target field. > > I think I need someone with appropriate write privileges to > > agree with that, and to also give 48h for someone to fix the > > problem.  Sorry for not forthcoming on the second point. > > Did you or somebody else try to look into the problem? To decide > whether it's the "best course of action" it would be nice to know if > it's a simple error in the patch that is easy to fix. Nope, not really. Wouldn't FWIW, de jure matter, me not having write privileges to the affected area. Though, I had a quick look at the patch and nothing stood out except its intrusiveness, and it seems the patch wasn't tested on a !simple_return target (just "powerpc-linux" according to the replied-to message). brgds, H-P