From: Iain Sandoe <idsandoe@googlemail.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>,
GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] On the use of -funreachable-traps to deal with PR 109627
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 14:59:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <FF76B383-7876-40EC-8C88-4DC85D9A3BCD@googlemail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DB571D92-339E-4A69-B9B6-E87F1EA3312C@googlemail.com>
> On 9 Apr 2024, at 08:53, Iain Sandoe <idsandoe@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 9 Apr 2024, at 08:48, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:44:01AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> (why not do it at each such switch?)
>>
>> Because the traps would then be added even to the bbs which later
>> end up in the middle of the function.
>
> If we defer the unreachable => trap change until expand, then it would
> not affect any of the current decisions made by the middle end.
>
> Since the default expansion of unreachable is to a barrier - would this
> actually make material difference to RTL optimizations?
Here is an implementation of this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-April/649074.html
Taking a solution to PR109267 out of the equation - it would still be good
to get an answer to the original question “is -funreachable-traps behaving
as expected”? (since it does not substitute in the TU we’ve been discussing)
thanks
Iain
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-09 13:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-08 23:04 Iain Sandoe
2024-04-08 23:11 ` Andrew Pinski
2024-04-09 4:03 ` Jeff Law
2024-04-09 7:03 ` Richard Biener
2024-04-09 7:11 ` Jakub Jelinek
2024-04-09 7:44 ` Richard Biener
2024-04-09 7:48 ` Jakub Jelinek
2024-04-09 7:53 ` Iain Sandoe
2024-04-09 13:59 ` Iain Sandoe [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=FF76B383-7876-40EC-8C88-4DC85D9A3BCD@googlemail.com \
--to=idsandoe@googlemail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).