From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com (mail-ed1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5B2A3858C27 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 07:26:08 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A5B2A3858C27 Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id u25so23554637edf.1 for ; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 23:26:08 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0pD+PtdBFjW+3Upai4Rccqg4/Oz0lDGp1Nk7/zJtMZ4=; b=ILaUPE5WoqOjRZRZ4d0nKvCN3Yqdmfxq3Q9CMBkBQhjQTSqYzX4MGlWu6oqbeeOCOc A8MOBNNyyoBR29RnNNsRGtaWIJwd9J2ZCNp4IJLpRm1fKoXIKHWfdRbwGo4iSin7OPWQ IPIAjz2/dxY3JenrwJ/1BTNDKVICLPAYFyTguxJ/rY0S2CzgWfGcj11MiWUInK6loh77 jHvvFr51fDievlf4s+23GAZ7ACDvsIJkoHCu0XczYxciQC+KumON5Pv9BUufkkmL+luE 1l1G8/CEQf0UjJi5MFE6qERvpv6BMFxFmtfoIB77giLkSqqtBk+xRBEJzVqF6t5V231w N2fg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5338mK/IqsmAQcK3GaRwHMUeA2jCRpYQZ3b1CfpvJfiovRYdaPLZ lJsr8O1k4bCeXc4tr1mcGbPcjr9X6mEs5aY+crk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwthtnJP34UqwMEDaSMGH3U+9FsmM5X4BTXahsBwWc6zev59QXHHu+fr2sXW0OvNBRiNHjUbW9yOQ9aDRrOb+A= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:97d5:: with SMTP id js21mr38567089ejc.445.1641281167542; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 23:26:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4493B84A-DB6D-468B-86BF-DA5383D8CFE4@gmail.com> <794111d4-a64c-17e5-a4fe-f96e5182ee1@ispras.ru> <9252c923-c86a-7c98-ec5f-97410fbca8ed@ispras.ru> In-Reply-To: From: Richard Biener Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 08:25:56 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tree-ssa-sink: do not sink to in front of setjmp To: Alexander Monakov Cc: =?UTF-8?B?0JDQu9C10LrRgdC10Lkg0J3Rg9GA0LzRg9GF0LDQvNC10YLQvtCy?= , GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 07:26:09 -0000 On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 5:35 PM Alexander Monakov wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Jan 2022, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > @@ -5674,6 +5675,14 @@ gimple_verify_flow_info (void) > > > err = 1; > > > } > > > > > > + if (prev_stmt && stmt_starts_bb_p (stmt, prev_stmt)) > > > > stmt_starts_bb_p is really a helper used during CFG build, I'd rather > > test explicitely for a GIMPLE call with ECF_RETURNS_TWICE, or maybe, > > verify that iff a block has abnormal predecessors it starts with such > > a call (because IIRC we in some cases elide abnormal edges and then > > it's OK to move "down" the calls). So yes, if a block has abnormal preds > > it should start with a ECF_RETURNS_TWICE call, I think we cannot > > verify the reverse reliably - abnormal edges cannot easily be re-built > > in late stages (it's a bug that we do so during RTL expansion). > > Thanks, I could rewrite the patch along those lines, but I'm not sure where > this is going: the ~100 extra FAILs will still be there. What would the next > steps be for this patch and the initial tree-ssa-sink patch? I approved the initial sink patch (maybe not clearly enough). Can you open a bugreport about the missing CFG verification and list the set of FAILs (all errors in some passes similar to the one you fixed in sinking I guess)? It indeed sounds like something to tackle during next stage1 (unless you already narrowed down the culprit to a single offender...) Richard. > > Alexander