| Message ID | 20130207164229.GK7360@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:56:48PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > + /* Check the headers. */ > > > + FOR_EACH_BB (bb) > > > + { > > > + /* Skip BBs in the root tree. */ > > > + if (bb->loop_father == current_loops->tree_root) > > > + continue; > > > > You shouldn't need this ... it will miss missing toplevel loops > > Done. > > > > + if (bb_loop_header_p (bb)) > > > + if (bb->loop_father->header != bb) > > > > && bb->loop_father->header != bb) > > Fixed. Regtested/bootstrapped on x86_64 again (with tailc fix: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00310.html), ok now? Ok. Let's watch for fallout... Thanks, Richard. > 2013-02-07 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> > > * cfgloop.c (verify_loop_structure): Add more checking > of headers. > > --- gcc/cfgloop.c.mp 2013-02-07 14:07:24.580864372 +0100 > +++ gcc/cfgloop.c 2013-02-07 15:06:19.278571095 +0100 > @@ -1353,6 +1353,15 @@ verify_loop_structure (void) > } > } > > + /* Check the headers. */ > + FOR_EACH_BB (bb) > + if (bb_loop_header_p (bb) > + && bb->loop_father->header != bb) > + { > + error ("loop with header %d not in loop tree", bb->index); > + err = 1; > + } > + > /* Check get_loop_body. */ > visited = sbitmap_alloc (last_basic_block); > bitmap_clear (visited); > > Marek > >
On 02/08/2013 12:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Marek Polacek wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:56:48PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >>>> + /* Check the headers. */ >>>> + FOR_EACH_BB (bb) >>>> + { >>>> + /* Skip BBs in the root tree. */ >>>> + if (bb->loop_father == current_loops->tree_root) >>>> + continue; >>> >>> You shouldn't need this ... it will miss missing toplevel loops >> >> Done. >> >>>> + if (bb_loop_header_p (bb)) >>>> + if (bb->loop_father->header != bb) >>> >>> && bb->loop_father->header != bb) >> >> Fixed. Regtested/bootstrapped on x86_64 again (with tailc fix: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00310.html), ok now? > > Ok. Let's watch for fallout... > > Thanks, > Richard. Maybe here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-02/msg00835.html ?
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:20:18PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Ok. Let's watch for fallout...
Yeah, we'll see. Commited.
Marek
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:38:48PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote: > Maybe here: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-02/msg00835.html Well this one is definitely not caused by the new verifier bits above. Marek
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:38:48PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote: > > Maybe here: > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-02/msg00835.html > > Well this one is definitely not caused by the new verifier bits above. I've seen this locally when testing a LTO patch and am testing a fix right now (it's the IRA changes). Richard.
--- gcc/cfgloop.c.mp 2013-02-07 14:07:24.580864372 +0100 +++ gcc/cfgloop.c 2013-02-07 15:06:19.278571095 +0100 @@ -1353,6 +1353,15 @@ verify_loop_structure (void) } } + /* Check the headers. */ + FOR_EACH_BB (bb) + if (bb_loop_header_p (bb) + && bb->loop_father->header != bb) + { + error ("loop with header %d not in loop tree", bb->index); + err = 1; + } + /* Check get_loop_body. */ visited = sbitmap_alloc (last_basic_block); bitmap_clear (visited);