PR92163

PR92163

[Prathamesh Kulkarni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 164 bytes --]

Hi,
The attached patch tries to fix PR92163 by calling
gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges from ifcvt_local_dce if we need eh cleanup.
Does it look OK ?

Thanks,
Prathamesh

[-- Attachment #2: pr92163-2.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3815 bytes --]

2019-10-24  Prathamesh Kulkarni  <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org>

	PR tree-optimization/92163
	* tree-if-conv.c (ifcvt_local_dce): Call gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges
	if eh cleanup is required.
	* tree-ssa-dse.c (delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment): Change return type
	to bool and return the return value of gsi_remove.
	* tree-ssa-dse.h (delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment): Adjust prototype.

testsuite/
	* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92163.c: New test.

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92163.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92163.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..f64eaea6517
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92163.c
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fexceptions -fnon-call-exceptions -fopenacc" } */
+
+void
+xr (int *k7)
+{
+  int qa;
+
+#pragma acc parallel
+#pragma acc loop vector
+  for (qa = 0; qa < 3; ++qa)
+    if (qa % 2 != 0)
+      k7[qa] = 0;
+    else
+      k7[qa] = 1;
+}
diff --git a/gcc/tree-if-conv.c b/gcc/tree-if-conv.c
index df9046a3014..3e2769dd02d 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-if-conv.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-if-conv.c
@@ -2963,6 +2963,7 @@ ifcvt_local_dce (class loop *loop)
 	}
     }
   /* Delete dead statements.  */
+  bool do_eh_cleanup = false;
   gsi = gsi_start_bb (bb);
   while (!gsi_end_p (gsi))
     {
@@ -2975,7 +2976,7 @@ ifcvt_local_dce (class loop *loop)
 
 	  if (dse_classify_store (&write, stmt, false, NULL, NULL, latch_vdef)
 	      == DSE_STORE_DEAD)
-	    delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (&gsi, "dead");
+	    do_eh_cleanup |= delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (&gsi, "dead");
 	  else
 	    gsi_next (&gsi);
 	  continue;
@@ -2994,6 +2995,9 @@ ifcvt_local_dce (class loop *loop)
       gsi_remove (&gsi, true);
       release_defs (stmt);
     }
+
+  if (do_eh_cleanup)
+    gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges (bb);
 }
 
 /* If-convert LOOP when it is legal.  For the moment this pass has no
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c
index 25cd4709b31..deec6c07c50 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c
@@ -77,7 +77,6 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
    fact, they are the same transformation applied to different views of
    the CFG.  */
 
-void delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (gimple_stmt_iterator *, const char *);
 static void delete_dead_or_redundant_call (gimple_stmt_iterator *, const char *);
 
 /* Bitmap of blocks that have had EH statements cleaned.  We should
@@ -899,7 +898,7 @@ delete_dead_or_redundant_call (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, const char *type)
 
 /* Delete a dead store at GSI, which is a gimple assignment. */
 
-void
+bool
 delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, const char *type)
 {
   gimple *stmt = gsi_stmt (*gsi);
@@ -915,12 +914,14 @@ delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, const char *type
 
   /* Remove the dead store.  */
   basic_block bb = gimple_bb (stmt);
-  if (gsi_remove (gsi, true))
+  bool eh_cleanup_required = gsi_remove (gsi, true);
+  if (eh_cleanup_required && need_eh_cleanup)
     bitmap_set_bit (need_eh_cleanup, bb->index);
 
   /* And release any SSA_NAMEs set in this statement back to the
      SSA_NAME manager.  */
   release_defs (stmt);
+  return eh_cleanup_required;
 }
 
 /* Attempt to eliminate dead stores in the statement referenced by BSI.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.h b/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.h
index a5eccbd746d..80b6d9b2616 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.h
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.h
@@ -31,6 +31,6 @@ enum dse_store_status
 dse_store_status dse_classify_store (ao_ref *, gimple *, bool, sbitmap,
 				     bool * = NULL, tree = NULL);
 
-void delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (gimple_stmt_iterator *, const char *);
+bool delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (gimple_stmt_iterator *, const char *);
 
 #endif   /* GCC_TREE_SSA_DSE_H  */

Re: PR92163

[Richard Biener]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:45 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
<prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> The attached patch tries to fix PR92163 by calling
> gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges from ifcvt_local_dce if we need eh cleanup.
> Does it look OK ?

Hmm.  I think it shows an issue with the return value of remove_stmt_form_eh_lp
which is true if the LP index is -1 (externally throwing).  We don't
need to purge
any edges in that case.  That is, if-conversion should never need to
do EH purging
since that would be wrong-code.

As of the segfault can you please instead either pass down need_eh_cleanup
as function parameter (and NULL from ifcvt) or use the return value in DSE
to set the bit in the caller.

Thanks,
Richard.

> Thanks,
> Prathamesh

Re: PR92163

[Prathamesh Kulkarni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1026 bytes --]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 13:19, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:45 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch tries to fix PR92163 by calling
> > gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges from ifcvt_local_dce if we need eh cleanup.
> > Does it look OK ?
>
> Hmm.  I think it shows an issue with the return value of remove_stmt_form_eh_lp
> which is true if the LP index is -1 (externally throwing).  We don't
> need to purge
> any edges in that case.  That is, if-conversion should never need to
> do EH purging
> since that would be wrong-code.
>
> As of the segfault can you please instead either pass down need_eh_cleanup
> as function parameter (and NULL from ifcvt) or use the return value in DSE
> to set the bit in the caller.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the suggestions, does the attached patch look OK ?
Bootstrap+test in progress on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.

Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh

[-- Attachment #2: pr92163-3.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3634 bytes --]

2019-10-25  Prathamesh Kulkarni  <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org>

	PR tree-optimization/92163
	* tree-ssa-dse.c (delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment): New param
	need_eh_cleanup with default value NULL. Gate on need_eh_cleanup
	before calling bitmap_set_bit.
	(dse_optimize_redundant_stores): Pass global need_eh_cleanup to
	delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment.
	(dse_dom_walker::dse_optimize_stmt): Likewise.
	* tree-ssa-dse.h (delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment): Adjust prototype.

testsuite/
	* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92163.c: New test.

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92163.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92163.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..58f548fe76b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92163.c
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+/* { dg-do "compile" } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fexceptions -fnon-call-exceptions -fopenacc" } */
+
+void
+xr (int *k7)
+{
+  int qa;
+
+#pragma acc parallel
+#pragma acc loop vector
+  for (qa = 0; qa < 3; ++qa)
+    if (qa % 2 != 0)
+      k7[qa] = 0;
+    else
+      k7[qa] = 1;
+}
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c
index 25cd4709b31..21a15eef690 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c
@@ -77,7 +77,6 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
    fact, they are the same transformation applied to different views of
    the CFG.  */
 
-void delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (gimple_stmt_iterator *, const char *);
 static void delete_dead_or_redundant_call (gimple_stmt_iterator *, const char *);
 
 /* Bitmap of blocks that have had EH statements cleaned.  We should
@@ -639,7 +638,8 @@ dse_optimize_redundant_stores (gimple *stmt)
 	    {
 	      gimple_stmt_iterator gsi = gsi_for_stmt (use_stmt);
 	      if (is_gimple_assign (use_stmt))
-		delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (&gsi, "redundant");
+		delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (&gsi, "redundant",
+						     need_eh_cleanup);
 	      else if (is_gimple_call (use_stmt))
 		delete_dead_or_redundant_call (&gsi, "redundant");
 	      else
@@ -900,7 +900,8 @@ delete_dead_or_redundant_call (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, const char *type)
 /* Delete a dead store at GSI, which is a gimple assignment. */
 
 void
-delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, const char *type)
+delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, const char *type,
+				     bitmap need_eh_cleanup)
 {
   gimple *stmt = gsi_stmt (*gsi);
   if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
@@ -915,7 +916,7 @@ delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi, const char *type
 
   /* Remove the dead store.  */
   basic_block bb = gimple_bb (stmt);
-  if (gsi_remove (gsi, true))
+  if (gsi_remove (gsi, true) && need_eh_cleanup)
     bitmap_set_bit (need_eh_cleanup, bb->index);
 
   /* And release any SSA_NAMEs set in this statement back to the
@@ -1059,7 +1060,7 @@ dse_dom_walker::dse_optimize_stmt (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi)
 	  && !by_clobber_p)
 	return;
 
-      delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (gsi, "dead");
+      delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (gsi, "dead", need_eh_cleanup);
     }
 }
 
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.h b/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.h
index a5eccbd746d..2658f92b1bb 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.h
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-dse.h
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ enum dse_store_status
 dse_store_status dse_classify_store (ao_ref *, gimple *, bool, sbitmap,
 				     bool * = NULL, tree = NULL);
 
-void delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (gimple_stmt_iterator *, const char *);
+void delete_dead_or_redundant_assignment (gimple_stmt_iterator *, const char *,
+					  bitmap = NULL);
 
 #endif   /* GCC_TREE_SSA_DSE_H  */

Re: PR92163

[Richard Biener]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 9:58 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
<prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 13:19, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:45 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > The attached patch tries to fix PR92163 by calling
> > > gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges from ifcvt_local_dce if we need eh cleanup.
> > > Does it look OK ?
> >
> > Hmm.  I think it shows an issue with the return value of remove_stmt_form_eh_lp
> > which is true if the LP index is -1 (externally throwing).  We don't
> > need to purge
> > any edges in that case.  That is, if-conversion should never need to
> > do EH purging
> > since that would be wrong-code.
> >
> > As of the segfault can you please instead either pass down need_eh_cleanup
> > as function parameter (and NULL from ifcvt) or use the return value in DSE
> > to set the bit in the caller.
> Hi Richard,
> Thanks for the suggestions, does the attached patch look OK ?
> Bootstrap+test in progress on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.

OK.

Richard.

> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Richard.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Prathamesh

Re: PR92163

[Prathamesh Kulkarni]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 07:18, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 9:58 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 13:19, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:45 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > The attached patch tries to fix PR92163 by calling
> > > > gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges from ifcvt_local_dce if we need eh cleanup.
> > > > Does it look OK ?
> > >
> > > Hmm.  I think it shows an issue with the return value of remove_stmt_form_eh_lp
> > > which is true if the LP index is -1 (externally throwing).  We don't
> > > need to purge
> > > any edges in that case.  That is, if-conversion should never need to
> > > do EH purging
> > > since that would be wrong-code.
> > >
> > > As of the segfault can you please instead either pass down need_eh_cleanup
> > > as function parameter (and NULL from ifcvt) or use the return value in DSE
> > > to set the bit in the caller.
> > Hi Richard,
> > Thanks for the suggestions, does the attached patch look OK ?
> > Bootstrap+test in progress on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>
> OK.
Thanks, committed to trunk in r277525 after bootstrap+test on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.

Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Richard.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Richard.
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Prathamesh

Re: PR92163

[Christophe Lyon]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 16:03, Prathamesh Kulkarni
<prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 07:18, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 9:58 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 13:19, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:45 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > The attached patch tries to fix PR92163 by calling
> > > > > gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges from ifcvt_local_dce if we need eh cleanup.
> > > > > Does it look OK ?
> > > >
> > > > Hmm.  I think it shows an issue with the return value of remove_stmt_form_eh_lp
> > > > which is true if the LP index is -1 (externally throwing).  We don't
> > > > need to purge
> > > > any edges in that case.  That is, if-conversion should never need to
> > > > do EH purging
> > > > since that would be wrong-code.
> > > >
> > > > As of the segfault can you please instead either pass down need_eh_cleanup
> > > > as function parameter (and NULL from ifcvt) or use the return value in DSE
> > > > to set the bit in the caller.
> > > Hi Richard,
> > > Thanks for the suggestions, does the attached patch look OK ?
> > > Bootstrap+test in progress on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> >
> > OK.
> Thanks, committed to trunk in r277525 after bootstrap+test on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>

Hi Prathamesh,

There's a problem with the new test you added: if uses -fopenacc which
is not supported by arm-eabi or aarch64-elf targets for instance.
You probably want to move the test to gcc.dg/goacc or add
dg-require-effective-target fopenacc.

Thanks,

Christophe

> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Prathamesh
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Richard.
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Prathamesh

Re: PR92163

[Prathamesh Kulkarni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2269 bytes --]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 18:37, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 16:03, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 07:18, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 9:58 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 13:19, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:45 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > The attached patch tries to fix PR92163 by calling
> > > > > > gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges from ifcvt_local_dce if we need eh cleanup.
> > > > > > Does it look OK ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm.  I think it shows an issue with the return value of remove_stmt_form_eh_lp
> > > > > which is true if the LP index is -1 (externally throwing).  We don't
> > > > > need to purge
> > > > > any edges in that case.  That is, if-conversion should never need to
> > > > > do EH purging
> > > > > since that would be wrong-code.
> > > > >
> > > > > As of the segfault can you please instead either pass down need_eh_cleanup
> > > > > as function parameter (and NULL from ifcvt) or use the return value in DSE
> > > > > to set the bit in the caller.
> > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > Thanks for the suggestions, does the attached patch look OK ?
> > > > Bootstrap+test in progress on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> > >
> > > OK.
> > Thanks, committed to trunk in r277525 after bootstrap+test on
> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> >
>
> Hi Prathamesh,
>
> There's a problem with the new test you added: if uses -fopenacc which
> is not supported by arm-eabi or aarch64-elf targets for instance.
> You probably want to move the test to gcc.dg/goacc or add
> dg-require-effective-target fopenacc.
Oops, sorry about that. Could you please confirm if attached patch
fixes the issue ?
I added dg-require-effective-target fopenacc.

Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Thanks,
>
> Christophe
>
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh
> > >
> > > Richard.
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Prathamesh
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Prathamesh

[-- Attachment #2: foo.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 397 bytes --]

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92163.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92163.c
index 58f548fe76b..227c09255e4 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92163.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr92163.c
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 /* { dg-do "compile" } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target fopenacc } */
 /* { dg-options "-O2 -fexceptions -fnon-call-exceptions -fopenacc" } */
 
 void

Re: PR92163

[Christophe Lyon]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 05:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni
<prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 18:37, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 16:03, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 07:18, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 9:58 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 13:19, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:45 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > The attached patch tries to fix PR92163 by calling
> > > > > > > gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges from ifcvt_local_dce if we need eh cleanup.
> > > > > > > Does it look OK ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm.  I think it shows an issue with the return value of remove_stmt_form_eh_lp
> > > > > > which is true if the LP index is -1 (externally throwing).  We don't
> > > > > > need to purge
> > > > > > any edges in that case.  That is, if-conversion should never need to
> > > > > > do EH purging
> > > > > > since that would be wrong-code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As of the segfault can you please instead either pass down need_eh_cleanup
> > > > > > as function parameter (and NULL from ifcvt) or use the return value in DSE
> > > > > > to set the bit in the caller.
> > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > Thanks for the suggestions, does the attached patch look OK ?
> > > > > Bootstrap+test in progress on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> > > >
> > > > OK.
> > > Thanks, committed to trunk in r277525 after bootstrap+test on
> > > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Prathamesh,
> >
> > There's a problem with the new test you added: if uses -fopenacc which
> > is not supported by arm-eabi or aarch64-elf targets for instance.
> > You probably want to move the test to gcc.dg/goacc or add
> > dg-require-effective-target fopenacc.
> Oops, sorry about that. Could you please confirm if attached patch
> fixes the issue ?
> I added dg-require-effective-target fopenacc.
>

Yes that works. Maybe you can commit it as obvious?

Thanks,

Christophe

> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Prathamesh
> > > >
> > > > Richard.
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Prathamesh
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Prathamesh

Re: PR92163

[Prathamesh Kulkarni]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 18:36, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 05:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 18:37, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 16:03, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 07:18, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 9:58 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 13:19, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:45 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > > > > > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > The attached patch tries to fix PR92163 by calling
> > > > > > > > gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges from ifcvt_local_dce if we need eh cleanup.
> > > > > > > > Does it look OK ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hmm.  I think it shows an issue with the return value of remove_stmt_form_eh_lp
> > > > > > > which is true if the LP index is -1 (externally throwing).  We don't
> > > > > > > need to purge
> > > > > > > any edges in that case.  That is, if-conversion should never need to
> > > > > > > do EH purging
> > > > > > > since that would be wrong-code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As of the segfault can you please instead either pass down need_eh_cleanup
> > > > > > > as function parameter (and NULL from ifcvt) or use the return value in DSE
> > > > > > > to set the bit in the caller.
> > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > Thanks for the suggestions, does the attached patch look OK ?
> > > > > > Bootstrap+test in progress on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK.
> > > > Thanks, committed to trunk in r277525 after bootstrap+test on
> > > > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Prathamesh,
> > >
> > > There's a problem with the new test you added: if uses -fopenacc which
> > > is not supported by arm-eabi or aarch64-elf targets for instance.
> > > You probably want to move the test to gcc.dg/goacc or add
> > > dg-require-effective-target fopenacc.
> > Oops, sorry about that. Could you please confirm if attached patch
> > fixes the issue ?
> > I added dg-require-effective-target fopenacc.
> >
>
> Yes that works. Maybe you can commit it as obvious?
Thanks, committed in r277906.

Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Thanks,
>
> Christophe
>
> > Thanks,
> > Prathamesh
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Christophe
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Prathamesh
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Prathamesh
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Prathamesh