Re: PR92163

[Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org>]

[-- 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