From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12425 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2004 15:28:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12386 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2004 15:28:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2004 15:28:24 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2QFSK1X022349; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:28:20 -0500 Received: from speedy.slc.redhat.com (vpn50-15.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2QFSJj06503; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:28:19 -0500 Received: from redhat.com (law@localhost) by speedy.slc.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id i2QFSHL5014148; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:28:17 -0700 Message-Id: <200403261528.i2QFSHL5014148@speedy.slc.redhat.com> X-Authentication-Warning: speedy.slc.redhat.com: law owned process doing -bs To: Diego Novillo cc: Dale Johannesen , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org list" Reply-To: law@redhat.com Subject: Re: [tree-ssa vs lno] who is right? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:32:59 EST." <1080264779.4600.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> From: law@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:44:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01553.txt.bz2 In message <1080264779.4600.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Diego Novillo writ es: >On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 20:29, Dale Johannesen wrote: > >> ;; basic block 19, loop depth 0, count 0 >> ;; prev block 9, next block 20 >> ;; pred: 10 [100.0%] (fallthru) >> ;; succ: 28 [50.0%] (true,exec) 29 [50.0%] (false,exec) >> # maxmin_Result_140 = PHI <1(10)>; >> # maxmin_Result_142 = PHI <2(10)>; >> # lsm_tmp.19_144 = PHI ; >> :; >> if (m__10 == 0) goto ; else goto ; >> >> Is that suppose to be a valid assumption? The dup is created by >> copyrename, and >> I see no code there that's intended to stop dups from being created (on >> the >> contrary, but surely it's unusual for the live ranges to overlap). >> >Are maxmin_Result the same variable? Use -uid to find out. If they >both have the same UID, they're the same and that's a bug. There should >only be a single PHI node per variable in a basic block. Why would that be a bug? It just means that we have overlapping lifetimes for the two objects. It's certainly a little odd, but I wouldn't go straight to classifying it as a bug. Instead I would suggest looking into the first place where these two PHIs appeared and figure out why it happened. It could be a bug or it could be normal behavior. jeff