From patchwork Tue Oct 23 23:54:11 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Sharad Singhai X-Patchwork-Id: 193608 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A62A92C0080 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:54:59 +1100 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1351641301; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: MIME-Version:Received:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date: Message-ID:Subject:To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive: List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; bh=+XmlrFTLidZOYS1kV5W3 Y3alM8w=; b=akES9g+0MG5LDjWyzRB00hTHXnSlQqPXiK/9nziSuIovC2GYU9Ih qZkkJHmIgfZZhVpp3TmspED6NmqFjZSM/NdNfCqSLzrYcbGmKC/eQzCqD1EKADUd zLErQsDgXdvf4XCNN/RJm53YtWs//MW2IOvUpVBOq8AVIV0a0KNub4Q= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:X-Google-DKIM-Signature:Received:MIME-Version:Received:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-System-Of-Record:X-Gm-Message-State:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=say4P1AHsG4QnaD+IiQ3qCZnWren2FLvtULo792rT5oiGY6sn/bY5nGpX79Xsd NoqMky36ypLv1Xkta8YPFmjPrLSc9zIls4sopQxXO24fGzWY+VPVX0LLKBCfRAtz SzE53sXFgWY5egLqPZsxpFFX2T14lthpCtPCudi3rnKD0=; Received: (qmail 21798 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2012 23:54:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 21789 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Oct 2012 23:54:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, KHOP_RCVD_TRUST, KHOP_THREADED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE, RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f175.google.com) (209.85.220.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:54:53 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id p1so5183025vcq.20 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:54:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record :x-gm-message-state; bh=qyXOnQXYhWRUKDdIBs9jrUUESfAG9w39AqV9H0YN+IU=; b=gFTSFmqP5f5xPnJ00h07gA45omuuhjTPrxCUlRpvGpG9knRsahOsuENsYmEqLV6jYT v0jAw4AcbbbUk8E+cfMmzTSBjIJ0B1c2IcznTrtSYJzzCXRFXyOSuN1QWztX5nKmGSdb tLg8tU81pxhmWRDhf1vKtGf+NnzheM/CBYCagbN2pJprWANjBENGbN4FFlPXZYiNXQXD poOMkFsrtEr6d2NE/mKBePpC2mcFHjEMkLAUgaguomGYcEdQQX99aggvqTqty39x/Luc AtWBcpJwVkhoRglo/cdW2K2X3THSka+CTInWXkzR/TiyL6dueMHDQNd717Pxhv28ec6C CW0w== Received: by 10.52.29.74 with SMTP id i10mr19121905vdh.40.1351036492063; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:54:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.26.76 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:54:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Sharad Singhai Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:54:11 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PR tree-optimization/54985 To: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , law X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlhE8I39KzK0WqUh6EQTW2NxWDK7lhyyk5wNbp+++TTBYORdd2alTKwryxec1k0mD2W9ExapXdIFndRQOzIGQdGHzxZ3eXBHE+Hza51PTrgK5uRIyg9FV2U2b3wRo3XqtwB6cMSWmvTBv5m/tIZRmmesypqWr/swLn7ecqEMk8DI58ZC7Fg3C24U4vFq8UMzqlshVgr Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org The following trivial patch seems to fix it. Sharad On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote: > The trunk seems to be broken at r192749 due to this patch. > > ../../srctrunk/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c: In function ‘void > thread_across_edge(gimple_statement_d*, edge_def*, bool, > vec_t**, tree_node* (*)(gimple_statement_d*, > gimple_statement_d*))’: > ../../srctrunk/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c:583: error: too many > arguments to function ‘bool cond_arg_set_in_bb(edge_def*, > basic_block_def*)’ > ../../srctrunk/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c:746: error: at this point in file > ../../srctrunk/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c:583: error: too many > arguments to function ‘bool cond_arg_set_in_bb(edge_def*, > basic_block_def*)’ > ../../srctrunk/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c:790: error: at this point in file > ../../srctrunk/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c:583: error: too many > arguments to function ‘bool cond_arg_set_in_bb(edge_def*, > basic_block_def*)’ > ../../srctrunk/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c:849: error: at this point in file > make: *** [tree-ssa-threadedge.o] Error 1 > > Sharad Index: tree-ssa-threadedge.c =================================================================== --- tree-ssa-threadedge.c (revision 192749) +++ tree-ssa-threadedge.c (working copy) @@ -743,7 +743,7 @@ safe to thread this edge. */ if (e->flags & EDGE_DFS_BACK) { - if (cond_arg_set_in_bb (e, e->dest, 1)) + if (cond_arg_set_in_bb (e, e->dest)) goto fail; } @@ -787,7 +787,7 @@ of threading without having to re-run DOM or VRP. */ if (dest && ((e->flags & EDGE_DFS_BACK) == 0 - || ! cond_arg_set_in_bb (taken_edge, e->dest, 2))) + || ! cond_arg_set_in_bb (taken_edge, e->dest))) { /* We don't want to thread back to a block we have already visited. This may be overly conservative. */ @@ -846,7 +846,7 @@ do { if ((e->flags & EDGE_DFS_BACK) == 0 - || ! cond_arg_set_in_bb (e3, e->dest, 3)) + || ! cond_arg_set_in_bb (e3, e->dest)) e2 = thread_around_empty_block (e3, dummy_cond, handle_dominating_asserts,