On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [Sorry, I'm on vacation and very little computer access]. I am very glad to heard that you are back. > > I still object to the kill_unreachable_bbs() patch and I ask > to reconsider it in favor of the original one. Of course. I will hold the RC5 for you. I haven't push the change to master yet. It is only in sparse-next, I can still roll back the change in we wants to. Can you show me some C input file that your original patch will do the right thing and current one will miss the opportunity to simplify? Even for the case it is just a suspect of producing worse code is fine. Just point me to some test case, I will investigate and compare the results. My guess is that, there is a good chance some where missing a simplify opportunity. If it does make a difference and I can't fix it in a timely manner. Let's use your patch and deal with it after the release. In the long run, I would prefer not using the two pass deletion of the dead bb, if they can produce the similar level of optimized result. > Since this has already been discussed, I can only invite to read > again the original patch and the one it fixes where the situation > is explained, I think, clearly. The original patch does not have test case showing the byte code difference with this two approach. I need some test examples :-) Again, glad to know that you are back. Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
