From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rguenther@suse.de>
Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D51F13858D37
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:17:48 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D51F13858D37
Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134])
 by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF7021F385;
 Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:17:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from murzim.suse.de (murzim.suse.de [10.160.4.192])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 906EAA3B83;
 Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:17:47 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:17:47 +0100 (CET)
From: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, ebotcazou@adacore.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/104263 - avoid retaining abnormal
 edges for non-call/goto stmts
In-Reply-To: <20220128111001.GO2646553@tucnak>
Message-ID: <o91s654-25s9-4orn-7394-84s5353r4qp@fhfr.qr>
References: <20220128102939.4C0CF13D17@imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de>
 <20220128104623.GN2646553@tucnak>
 <7n489n9p-osps-q488-7o7s-q444ps02r93@fhfr.qr>
 <20220128111001.GO2646553@tucnak>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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 <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:17:49 -0000

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 12:04:00PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Still I think assuming there are no abnormal edges when neither
> > of the flag is set is premature (as can be seen here).  I also
> > don't think what we do in the function is very timing critical,
> > but sure, we walk all successor edges.
> 
> Ok then.

Just to add - gimple_purge_dead_abnormal_call_edges should only
be called if the caller determined a possible change.  I've checked
and only fixup_cfg calls it unconditionally (I guess on purpose).

Richard.