From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luc Van Oostenryck Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/29] Simple & Efficient SSA construction. Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:58:55 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20170816153455.97693-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> <20170817051607.7tydij5q4zny3zxo@ltop.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f65.google.com ([209.85.218.65]:32979 "EHLO mail-oi0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752403AbdHQT64 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:58:56 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f65.google.com with SMTP id e124so7399114oig.0 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 12:58:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Christopher Li Cc: Linux-Sparse , Linus Torvalds On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Christopher Li wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > I assume you need the phi-node relocation similar to the one used > in "dead code elimination using ssa". That will get merge the block > with phi node in it. No, it doesn't seems to be related. It's a miised opportunity of 'try_to_simplify_bb()'. One of the patches in my complete series solves it (and, it seems, the other differences too but I didn't yet checked it thoroughly). It's totally independent of the series, I can send it just after the series. >> just different code. But the context checking is quite limited and see now >> a path where the context could differ. I practice they won't differ and with >> previous code the context checking saw that because this patch was >> unexisting due to more aggressive merge of BB. > > Interesting.Context checking is very sensitive and give a lot of false > positives. Yes, but of course, the general case is impossible to have correctly. -- Luc