From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-375817-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7709 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2014 14:18:57 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 7644 invoked by uid 89); 20 Aug 2014 14:18:54 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-wg0-f48.google.com
Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f48.google.com) (74.125.82.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:18:53 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id x13so7946249wgg.7        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 07:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.106.6 with SMTP id gq6mr15804899wib.5.1408544330411; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 07:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.20.69 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 07:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+4CFy7cvqWsseuKuXfw3RaU2N85X7Bh=+xg9m9Rp3y=+A-3ZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+4CFy7sLjEWstfiHGYAv77iXitaYbRBTRpi+JUwz641VSFhBQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFiYyc3TO_o1_taze9F6h+-qNOxmMqCDJ_VZLdDz17MmUfXJzA@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+4CFy7a=CbTVSnpchKBqQjomw8Fc6kHWK2BkVDBVddyCRwO5A@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFiYyc2Y5q0_2X0AVwW+7=an+1ENSoHdtq0sGqbd=A+hCm6uSA@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+4CFy7cvqWsseuKuXfw3RaU2N85X7Bh=+xg9m9Rp3y=+A-3ZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:18:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc2b7JKYEwpgkJDVTRDZAXaerLHObBr6prhvsoJJ95FngA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, PR61776] verify_flow_info failed: control flow in the middle of basic block with -fprofile-generate
From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Wei Mi <wmi@google.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>, 	David Li <davidxl@google.com>, Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg02026.txt.bz2

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Wei Mi <wmi@google.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply. I took some time to make myself more
> familiar with NORETURN and related code, and finally I understood what
> you mean and saw why only GF_CALL_CTRL_ALTERING was enough and
> GF_CALL_NORETURN was unneeded. With your suggestion, the change looks
> much briefer! Please check if the new patch attached is ok.

Indeed - much nicer than I originally thought.  Thanks for bearing
with me.

> bootstrap and regression tests pass on x86_64-linux-gnu.

Ok!

Thanks,
Richard.

> Thanks,
> Wei.
>
>> +static void
>> +update_no_abnormal_goto_attr (basic_block bb)
>> +{
>> +  gimple_stmt_iterator gsi;
>> +  for (gsi = gsi_start_bb (bb); !gsi_end_p (gsi); gsi_next (&gsi))
>> +    {
>>
>> it should be enough to check these on last stmts of a basic block, no?
>
> Yes, that is better.
>
>>
>> That you call update_no_abnormal_goto_attr from two places
>> before cleanup_tree_cfg_bb suggests you may want to perform
>> this change in cleanup_control_flow_bb which already looks
>> at the last stmt only?
>
> Changed.
>
>>
>> Btw, I originally had this whole idea of moving flags to the gimple
>> stmt level because of the "interesting" way we handle the noreturn
>> attribute (calls to noreturn functions also end basic-blocks).
>>
>> Thus would it be possible to turn all these into a single flag,
>> GF_CALL_CTRL_ALTERING?  That is, cover everything
>> that is_ctrl_altering_stmt covers?  I suggest we initialize it at
>> CFG build time and only ever clear it later.
>
> Good idea!