From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-278899-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13080 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2010 22:40:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 13011 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2010 22:40:12 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-px0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-px0-f175.google.com) (209.85.212.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:40:07 +0000
Received: by pxi17 with SMTP id 17so1005350pxi.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:40:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.11.17 with SMTP id 17mr1070878wfk.105.1290120005398; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:40:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.143.161.2 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:40:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinHzOEf9RtEm59Qg+ky5_ov5-41TTEba1cWVJw7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinHzOEf9RtEm59Qg+ky5_ov5-41TTEba1cWVJw7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:37:00 -0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTikgnc8A_92kGL5VjwonicoiixiSYg79U5ygN4uW@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Properly check the end of basic block
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com>
Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, 	Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg01981.txt.bz2

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>> Index: passes.c
>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> --- passes.c =A0(revision 166920)
>> +++ passes.c =A0(working copy)
>> @@ -1051,8 +1051,8 @@ init_optimization_passes (void)
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 NEXT_PASS (pass_compute_alignments);
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 NEXT_PASS (pass_duplicate_computed_gotos);
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 NEXT_PASS (pass_variable_tracking);
>> - =A0 =A0 =A0 NEXT_PASS (pass_free_cfg);
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 NEXT_PASS (pass_machine_reorg);
>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 NEXT_PASS (pass_free_cfg);
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 NEXT_PASS (pass_cleanup_barriers);
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 NEXT_PASS (pass_delay_slots);
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 NEXT_PASS (pass_split_for_shorten_branches);
>
> This breaks at least all targets that run delay slot scheduling during
> machine-reorg (MIPS), targets that layout constant pools (SH,ARM),
> targets that recompute the CFG in their machine-reorg (blackfin, ia64,
> MIPS (?!)).
>
> But I'm impressed that an ix86 bootstrap survives with this patch.
> Have you verified that there are no changes in the generated code?

Bootstrap and regression test went both without problems/regressions.
I didn't investigate code changes.

Uros.