From 6d48463df63e2b131264ba302463ba6833667722 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@sunsite.dk>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:44:48 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] toolchain/gcc: fix PR 32044 patch
Somehow the patch was a patch adding a patch instead of the patch itself.
---
.../901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch | 379 +++++++++---------
.../901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch | 379 +++++++++---------
.../901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch | 379 +++++++++---------
3 files changed, 561 insertions(+), 576 deletions(-)
diff --git a/toolchain/gcc/4.3.1/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch b/toolchain/gcc/4.3.1/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch
index 603c7f698b..9337bf9eed 100644
--- a/toolchain/gcc/4.3.1/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch
+++ b/toolchain/gcc/4.3.1/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch
@@ -1,193 +1,188 @@
-Index: toolchain/gcc/4.3.2/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c
===================================================================
---- toolchain/gcc/4.3.2/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch (revision 0)
-+++ toolchain/gcc/4.3.2/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch (revision 0)
-@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c
-+===================================================================
-+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:14:37.000000000 +0100
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:17:50.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -2716,6 +2716,50 @@
-+ scalar_evolution_info = NULL;
-+ }
-+
-++/* Returns true if the expression EXPR is considered to be too expensive
-++ for scev_const_prop. */
-++
-++bool
-++expression_expensive_p (tree expr)
-++{
-++ enum tree_code code;
-++
-++ if (is_gimple_val (expr))
-++ return false;
-++
-++ code = TREE_CODE (expr);
-++ if (code == TRUNC_DIV_EXPR
-++ || code == CEIL_DIV_EXPR
-++ || code == FLOOR_DIV_EXPR
-++ || code == ROUND_DIV_EXPR
-++ || code == TRUNC_MOD_EXPR
-++ || code == CEIL_MOD_EXPR
-++ || code == FLOOR_MOD_EXPR
-++ || code == ROUND_MOD_EXPR
-++ || code == EXACT_DIV_EXPR)
-++ {
-++ /* Division by power of two is usually cheap, so we allow it.
-++ Forbid anything else. */
-++ if (!integer_pow2p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
-++ return true;
-++ }
-++
-++ switch (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code))
-++ {
-++ case tcc_binary:
-++ case tcc_comparison:
-++ if (expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
-++ return true;
-++
-++ /* Fallthru. */
-++ case tcc_unary:
-++ return expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0));
-++
-++ default:
-++ return true;
-++ }
-++}
-++
-+ /* Replace ssa names for that scev can prove they are constant by the
-+ appropriate constants. Also perform final value replacement in loops,
-+ in case the replacement expressions are cheap.
-+@@ -2802,12 +2846,6 @@
-+ continue;
-+
-+ niter = number_of_latch_executions (loop);
-+- /* We used to check here whether the computation of NITER is expensive,
-+- and avoided final value elimination if that is the case. The problem
-+- is that it is hard to evaluate whether the expression is too
-+- expensive, as we do not know what optimization opportunities the
-+- the elimination of the final value may reveal. Therefore, we now
-+- eliminate the final values of induction variables unconditionally. */
-+ if (niter == chrec_dont_know)
-+ continue;
-+
-+@@ -2838,7 +2876,15 @@
-+ /* Moving the computation from the loop may prolong life range
-+ of some ssa names, which may cause problems if they appear
-+ on abnormal edges. */
-+- || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def))
-++ || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def)
-++ /* Do not emit expensive expressions. The rationale is that
-++ when someone writes a code like
-++
-++ while (n > 45) n -= 45;
-++
-++ he probably knows that n is not large, and does not want it
-++ to be turned into n %= 45. */
-++ || expression_expensive_p (def))
-+ continue;
-+
-+ /* Eliminate the PHI node and replace it by a computation outside
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h
-+===================================================================
-+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:22:47.000000000 +0100
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:23:10.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
-+ extern void scev_analysis (void);
-+ unsigned int scev_const_prop (void);
-+
-++bool expression_expensive_p (tree);
-+ extern bool simple_iv (struct loop *, tree, tree, affine_iv *, bool);
-+
-+ /* Returns the loop of the polynomial chrec CHREC. */
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c
-+===================================================================
-+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:09.000000000 +0100
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:43.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -8,5 +8,9 @@
-+ return ns;
-+ }
-+
-+-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "ns % 10000" "optimized" } } */
-++/* This test was originally introduced to test that we transform
-++ to ns % 10000. See the discussion of PR 32044 why we do not do
-++ that anymore. */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "optimized" } } */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "optimized" } } */
-+ /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c
-+===================================================================
-+--- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c 2009-01-28 10:25:50.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
-++/* { dg-do compile } */
-++/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-empty -fdump-tree-final_cleanup" } */
-++
-++int foo (int n)
-++{
-++ while (n >= 45)
-++ n -= 45;
-++
-++ return n;
-++}
-++
-++int bar (int n)
-++{
-++ while (n >= 64)
-++ n -= 64;
-++
-++ return n;
-++}
-++
-++int bla (int n)
-++{
-++ int i = 0;
-++
-++ while (n >= 45)
-++ {
-++ i++;
-++ n -= 45;
-++ }
-++
-++ return i;
-++}
-++
-++int baz (int n)
-++{
-++ int i = 0;
-++
-++ while (n >= 64)
-++ {
-++ i++;
-++ n -= 64;
-++ }
-++
-++ return i;
-++}
-++
-++/* The loops computing division/modulo by 64 should be eliminated. */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Removing empty loop" 2 "empty" } } */
-++
-++/* There should be no division/modulo in the final dump (division and modulo
-++ by 64 are done using bit operations). */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
-++
-++/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "empty" } } */
-++/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "final_cleanup" } } */
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
-+===================================================================
-+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:26:04.000000000 +0100
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:27:09.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -3778,7 +3778,12 @@
-+ return false;
-+
-+ cand_value_at (loop, cand, use->stmt, nit, &bnd);
-++
-+ *bound = aff_combination_to_tree (&bnd);
-++ /* It is unlikely that computing the number of iterations using division
-++ would be more profitable than keeping the original induction variable. */
-++ if (expression_expensive_p (*bound))
-++ return false;
-+ return true;
-+ }
+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:14:37.000000000 +0100
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:17:50.000000000 +0100
+@@ -2716,6 +2716,50 @@
+ scalar_evolution_info = NULL;
+ }
+
++/* Returns true if the expression EXPR is considered to be too expensive
++ for scev_const_prop. */
++
++bool
++expression_expensive_p (tree expr)
++{
++ enum tree_code code;
++
++ if (is_gimple_val (expr))
++ return false;
++
++ code = TREE_CODE (expr);
++ if (code == TRUNC_DIV_EXPR
++ || code == CEIL_DIV_EXPR
++ || code == FLOOR_DIV_EXPR
++ || code == ROUND_DIV_EXPR
++ || code == TRUNC_MOD_EXPR
++ || code == CEIL_MOD_EXPR
++ || code == FLOOR_MOD_EXPR
++ || code == ROUND_MOD_EXPR
++ || code == EXACT_DIV_EXPR)
++ {
++ /* Division by power of two is usually cheap, so we allow it.
++ Forbid anything else. */
++ if (!integer_pow2p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
++ return true;
++ }
++
++ switch (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code))
++ {
++ case tcc_binary:
++ case tcc_comparison:
++ if (expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
++ return true;
++
++ /* Fallthru. */
++ case tcc_unary:
++ return expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0));
++
++ default:
++ return true;
++ }
++}
++
+ /* Replace ssa names for that scev can prove they are constant by the
+ appropriate constants. Also perform final value replacement in loops,
+ in case the replacement expressions are cheap.
+@@ -2802,12 +2846,6 @@
+ continue;
+
+ niter = number_of_latch_executions (loop);
+- /* We used to check here whether the computation of NITER is expensive,
+- and avoided final value elimination if that is the case. The problem
+- is that it is hard to evaluate whether the expression is too
+- expensive, as we do not know what optimization opportunities the
+- the elimination of the final value may reveal. Therefore, we now
+- eliminate the final values of induction variables unconditionally. */
+ if (niter == chrec_dont_know)
+ continue;
+
+@@ -2838,7 +2876,15 @@
+ /* Moving the computation from the loop may prolong life range
+ of some ssa names, which may cause problems if they appear
+ on abnormal edges. */
+- || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def))
++ || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def)
++ /* Do not emit expensive expressions. The rationale is that
++ when someone writes a code like
++
++ while (n > 45) n -= 45;
++
++ he probably knows that n is not large, and does not want it
++ to be turned into n %= 45. */
++ || expression_expensive_p (def))
+ continue;
+
+ /* Eliminate the PHI node and replace it by a computation outside
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h
+===================================================================
+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:22:47.000000000 +0100
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:23:10.000000000 +0100
+@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
+ extern void scev_analysis (void);
+ unsigned int scev_const_prop (void);
+
++bool expression_expensive_p (tree);
+ extern bool simple_iv (struct loop *, tree, tree, affine_iv *, bool);
+
+ /* Returns the loop of the polynomial chrec CHREC. */
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c
+===================================================================
+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:09.000000000 +0100
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:43.000000000 +0100
+@@ -8,5 +8,9 @@
+ return ns;
+ }
+
+-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "ns % 10000" "optimized" } } */
++/* This test was originally introduced to test that we transform
++ to ns % 10000. See the discussion of PR 32044 why we do not do
++ that anymore. */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "optimized" } } */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "optimized" } } */
+ /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c
+===================================================================
+--- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c 2009-01-28 10:25:50.000000000 +0100
+@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
++/* { dg-do compile } */
++/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-empty -fdump-tree-final_cleanup" } */
++
++int foo (int n)
++{
++ while (n >= 45)
++ n -= 45;
++
++ return n;
++}
++
++int bar (int n)
++{
++ while (n >= 64)
++ n -= 64;
++
++ return n;
++}
++
++int bla (int n)
++{
++ int i = 0;
++
++ while (n >= 45)
++ {
++ i++;
++ n -= 45;
++ }
++
++ return i;
++}
++
++int baz (int n)
++{
++ int i = 0;
++
++ while (n >= 64)
++ {
++ i++;
++ n -= 64;
++ }
++
++ return i;
++}
++
++/* The loops computing division/modulo by 64 should be eliminated. */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Removing empty loop" 2 "empty" } } */
++
++/* There should be no division/modulo in the final dump (division and modulo
++ by 64 are done using bit operations). */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
++
++/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "empty" } } */
++/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "final_cleanup" } } */
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
+===================================================================
+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:26:04.000000000 +0100
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:27:09.000000000 +0100
+@@ -3778,7 +3778,12 @@
+ return false;
+
+ cand_value_at (loop, cand, use->stmt, nit, &bnd);
++
+ *bound = aff_combination_to_tree (&bnd);
++ /* It is unlikely that computing the number of iterations using division
++ would be more profitable than keeping the original induction variable. */
++ if (expression_expensive_p (*bound))
++ return false;
+ return true;
+ }
diff --git a/toolchain/gcc/4.3.2/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch b/toolchain/gcc/4.3.2/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch
index 603c7f698b..9337bf9eed 100644
--- a/toolchain/gcc/4.3.2/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch
+++ b/toolchain/gcc/4.3.2/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch
@@ -1,193 +1,188 @@
-Index: toolchain/gcc/4.3.2/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c
===================================================================
---- toolchain/gcc/4.3.2/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch (revision 0)
-+++ toolchain/gcc/4.3.2/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch (revision 0)
-@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c
-+===================================================================
-+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:14:37.000000000 +0100
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:17:50.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -2716,6 +2716,50 @@
-+ scalar_evolution_info = NULL;
-+ }
-+
-++/* Returns true if the expression EXPR is considered to be too expensive
-++ for scev_const_prop. */
-++
-++bool
-++expression_expensive_p (tree expr)
-++{
-++ enum tree_code code;
-++
-++ if (is_gimple_val (expr))
-++ return false;
-++
-++ code = TREE_CODE (expr);
-++ if (code == TRUNC_DIV_EXPR
-++ || code == CEIL_DIV_EXPR
-++ || code == FLOOR_DIV_EXPR
-++ || code == ROUND_DIV_EXPR
-++ || code == TRUNC_MOD_EXPR
-++ || code == CEIL_MOD_EXPR
-++ || code == FLOOR_MOD_EXPR
-++ || code == ROUND_MOD_EXPR
-++ || code == EXACT_DIV_EXPR)
-++ {
-++ /* Division by power of two is usually cheap, so we allow it.
-++ Forbid anything else. */
-++ if (!integer_pow2p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
-++ return true;
-++ }
-++
-++ switch (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code))
-++ {
-++ case tcc_binary:
-++ case tcc_comparison:
-++ if (expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
-++ return true;
-++
-++ /* Fallthru. */
-++ case tcc_unary:
-++ return expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0));
-++
-++ default:
-++ return true;
-++ }
-++}
-++
-+ /* Replace ssa names for that scev can prove they are constant by the
-+ appropriate constants. Also perform final value replacement in loops,
-+ in case the replacement expressions are cheap.
-+@@ -2802,12 +2846,6 @@
-+ continue;
-+
-+ niter = number_of_latch_executions (loop);
-+- /* We used to check here whether the computation of NITER is expensive,
-+- and avoided final value elimination if that is the case. The problem
-+- is that it is hard to evaluate whether the expression is too
-+- expensive, as we do not know what optimization opportunities the
-+- the elimination of the final value may reveal. Therefore, we now
-+- eliminate the final values of induction variables unconditionally. */
-+ if (niter == chrec_dont_know)
-+ continue;
-+
-+@@ -2838,7 +2876,15 @@
-+ /* Moving the computation from the loop may prolong life range
-+ of some ssa names, which may cause problems if they appear
-+ on abnormal edges. */
-+- || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def))
-++ || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def)
-++ /* Do not emit expensive expressions. The rationale is that
-++ when someone writes a code like
-++
-++ while (n > 45) n -= 45;
-++
-++ he probably knows that n is not large, and does not want it
-++ to be turned into n %= 45. */
-++ || expression_expensive_p (def))
-+ continue;
-+
-+ /* Eliminate the PHI node and replace it by a computation outside
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h
-+===================================================================
-+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:22:47.000000000 +0100
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:23:10.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
-+ extern void scev_analysis (void);
-+ unsigned int scev_const_prop (void);
-+
-++bool expression_expensive_p (tree);
-+ extern bool simple_iv (struct loop *, tree, tree, affine_iv *, bool);
-+
-+ /* Returns the loop of the polynomial chrec CHREC. */
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c
-+===================================================================
-+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:09.000000000 +0100
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:43.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -8,5 +8,9 @@
-+ return ns;
-+ }
-+
-+-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "ns % 10000" "optimized" } } */
-++/* This test was originally introduced to test that we transform
-++ to ns % 10000. See the discussion of PR 32044 why we do not do
-++ that anymore. */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "optimized" } } */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "optimized" } } */
-+ /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c
-+===================================================================
-+--- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c 2009-01-28 10:25:50.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
-++/* { dg-do compile } */
-++/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-empty -fdump-tree-final_cleanup" } */
-++
-++int foo (int n)
-++{
-++ while (n >= 45)
-++ n -= 45;
-++
-++ return n;
-++}
-++
-++int bar (int n)
-++{
-++ while (n >= 64)
-++ n -= 64;
-++
-++ return n;
-++}
-++
-++int bla (int n)
-++{
-++ int i = 0;
-++
-++ while (n >= 45)
-++ {
-++ i++;
-++ n -= 45;
-++ }
-++
-++ return i;
-++}
-++
-++int baz (int n)
-++{
-++ int i = 0;
-++
-++ while (n >= 64)
-++ {
-++ i++;
-++ n -= 64;
-++ }
-++
-++ return i;
-++}
-++
-++/* The loops computing division/modulo by 64 should be eliminated. */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Removing empty loop" 2 "empty" } } */
-++
-++/* There should be no division/modulo in the final dump (division and modulo
-++ by 64 are done using bit operations). */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
-++
-++/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "empty" } } */
-++/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "final_cleanup" } } */
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
-+===================================================================
-+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:26:04.000000000 +0100
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:27:09.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -3778,7 +3778,12 @@
-+ return false;
-+
-+ cand_value_at (loop, cand, use->stmt, nit, &bnd);
-++
-+ *bound = aff_combination_to_tree (&bnd);
-++ /* It is unlikely that computing the number of iterations using division
-++ would be more profitable than keeping the original induction variable. */
-++ if (expression_expensive_p (*bound))
-++ return false;
-+ return true;
-+ }
+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:14:37.000000000 +0100
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:17:50.000000000 +0100
+@@ -2716,6 +2716,50 @@
+ scalar_evolution_info = NULL;
+ }
+
++/* Returns true if the expression EXPR is considered to be too expensive
++ for scev_const_prop. */
++
++bool
++expression_expensive_p (tree expr)
++{
++ enum tree_code code;
++
++ if (is_gimple_val (expr))
++ return false;
++
++ code = TREE_CODE (expr);
++ if (code == TRUNC_DIV_EXPR
++ || code == CEIL_DIV_EXPR
++ || code == FLOOR_DIV_EXPR
++ || code == ROUND_DIV_EXPR
++ || code == TRUNC_MOD_EXPR
++ || code == CEIL_MOD_EXPR
++ || code == FLOOR_MOD_EXPR
++ || code == ROUND_MOD_EXPR
++ || code == EXACT_DIV_EXPR)
++ {
++ /* Division by power of two is usually cheap, so we allow it.
++ Forbid anything else. */
++ if (!integer_pow2p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
++ return true;
++ }
++
++ switch (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code))
++ {
++ case tcc_binary:
++ case tcc_comparison:
++ if (expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
++ return true;
++
++ /* Fallthru. */
++ case tcc_unary:
++ return expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0));
++
++ default:
++ return true;
++ }
++}
++
+ /* Replace ssa names for that scev can prove they are constant by the
+ appropriate constants. Also perform final value replacement in loops,
+ in case the replacement expressions are cheap.
+@@ -2802,12 +2846,6 @@
+ continue;
+
+ niter = number_of_latch_executions (loop);
+- /* We used to check here whether the computation of NITER is expensive,
+- and avoided final value elimination if that is the case. The problem
+- is that it is hard to evaluate whether the expression is too
+- expensive, as we do not know what optimization opportunities the
+- the elimination of the final value may reveal. Therefore, we now
+- eliminate the final values of induction variables unconditionally. */
+ if (niter == chrec_dont_know)
+ continue;
+
+@@ -2838,7 +2876,15 @@
+ /* Moving the computation from the loop may prolong life range
+ of some ssa names, which may cause problems if they appear
+ on abnormal edges. */
+- || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def))
++ || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def)
++ /* Do not emit expensive expressions. The rationale is that
++ when someone writes a code like
++
++ while (n > 45) n -= 45;
++
++ he probably knows that n is not large, and does not want it
++ to be turned into n %= 45. */
++ || expression_expensive_p (def))
+ continue;
+
+ /* Eliminate the PHI node and replace it by a computation outside
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h
+===================================================================
+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:22:47.000000000 +0100
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:23:10.000000000 +0100
+@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
+ extern void scev_analysis (void);
+ unsigned int scev_const_prop (void);
+
++bool expression_expensive_p (tree);
+ extern bool simple_iv (struct loop *, tree, tree, affine_iv *, bool);
+
+ /* Returns the loop of the polynomial chrec CHREC. */
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c
+===================================================================
+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:09.000000000 +0100
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:43.000000000 +0100
+@@ -8,5 +8,9 @@
+ return ns;
+ }
+
+-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "ns % 10000" "optimized" } } */
++/* This test was originally introduced to test that we transform
++ to ns % 10000. See the discussion of PR 32044 why we do not do
++ that anymore. */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "optimized" } } */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "optimized" } } */
+ /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c
+===================================================================
+--- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c 2009-01-28 10:25:50.000000000 +0100
+@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
++/* { dg-do compile } */
++/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-empty -fdump-tree-final_cleanup" } */
++
++int foo (int n)
++{
++ while (n >= 45)
++ n -= 45;
++
++ return n;
++}
++
++int bar (int n)
++{
++ while (n >= 64)
++ n -= 64;
++
++ return n;
++}
++
++int bla (int n)
++{
++ int i = 0;
++
++ while (n >= 45)
++ {
++ i++;
++ n -= 45;
++ }
++
++ return i;
++}
++
++int baz (int n)
++{
++ int i = 0;
++
++ while (n >= 64)
++ {
++ i++;
++ n -= 64;
++ }
++
++ return i;
++}
++
++/* The loops computing division/modulo by 64 should be eliminated. */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Removing empty loop" 2 "empty" } } */
++
++/* There should be no division/modulo in the final dump (division and modulo
++ by 64 are done using bit operations). */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
++
++/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "empty" } } */
++/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "final_cleanup" } } */
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
+===================================================================
+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:26:04.000000000 +0100
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:27:09.000000000 +0100
+@@ -3778,7 +3778,12 @@
+ return false;
+
+ cand_value_at (loop, cand, use->stmt, nit, &bnd);
++
+ *bound = aff_combination_to_tree (&bnd);
++ /* It is unlikely that computing the number of iterations using division
++ would be more profitable than keeping the original induction variable. */
++ if (expression_expensive_p (*bound))
++ return false;
+ return true;
+ }
diff --git a/toolchain/gcc/4.3.3/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch b/toolchain/gcc/4.3.3/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch
index 603c7f698b..9337bf9eed 100644
--- a/toolchain/gcc/4.3.3/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch
+++ b/toolchain/gcc/4.3.3/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch
@@ -1,193 +1,188 @@
-Index: toolchain/gcc/4.3.2/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c
===================================================================
---- toolchain/gcc/4.3.2/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch (revision 0)
-+++ toolchain/gcc/4.3.2/901-backport-fix-for-bug-32044.patch (revision 0)
-@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c
-+===================================================================
-+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:14:37.000000000 +0100
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:17:50.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -2716,6 +2716,50 @@
-+ scalar_evolution_info = NULL;
-+ }
-+
-++/* Returns true if the expression EXPR is considered to be too expensive
-++ for scev_const_prop. */
-++
-++bool
-++expression_expensive_p (tree expr)
-++{
-++ enum tree_code code;
-++
-++ if (is_gimple_val (expr))
-++ return false;
-++
-++ code = TREE_CODE (expr);
-++ if (code == TRUNC_DIV_EXPR
-++ || code == CEIL_DIV_EXPR
-++ || code == FLOOR_DIV_EXPR
-++ || code == ROUND_DIV_EXPR
-++ || code == TRUNC_MOD_EXPR
-++ || code == CEIL_MOD_EXPR
-++ || code == FLOOR_MOD_EXPR
-++ || code == ROUND_MOD_EXPR
-++ || code == EXACT_DIV_EXPR)
-++ {
-++ /* Division by power of two is usually cheap, so we allow it.
-++ Forbid anything else. */
-++ if (!integer_pow2p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
-++ return true;
-++ }
-++
-++ switch (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code))
-++ {
-++ case tcc_binary:
-++ case tcc_comparison:
-++ if (expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
-++ return true;
-++
-++ /* Fallthru. */
-++ case tcc_unary:
-++ return expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0));
-++
-++ default:
-++ return true;
-++ }
-++}
-++
-+ /* Replace ssa names for that scev can prove they are constant by the
-+ appropriate constants. Also perform final value replacement in loops,
-+ in case the replacement expressions are cheap.
-+@@ -2802,12 +2846,6 @@
-+ continue;
-+
-+ niter = number_of_latch_executions (loop);
-+- /* We used to check here whether the computation of NITER is expensive,
-+- and avoided final value elimination if that is the case. The problem
-+- is that it is hard to evaluate whether the expression is too
-+- expensive, as we do not know what optimization opportunities the
-+- the elimination of the final value may reveal. Therefore, we now
-+- eliminate the final values of induction variables unconditionally. */
-+ if (niter == chrec_dont_know)
-+ continue;
-+
-+@@ -2838,7 +2876,15 @@
-+ /* Moving the computation from the loop may prolong life range
-+ of some ssa names, which may cause problems if they appear
-+ on abnormal edges. */
-+- || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def))
-++ || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def)
-++ /* Do not emit expensive expressions. The rationale is that
-++ when someone writes a code like
-++
-++ while (n > 45) n -= 45;
-++
-++ he probably knows that n is not large, and does not want it
-++ to be turned into n %= 45. */
-++ || expression_expensive_p (def))
-+ continue;
-+
-+ /* Eliminate the PHI node and replace it by a computation outside
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h
-+===================================================================
-+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:22:47.000000000 +0100
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:23:10.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
-+ extern void scev_analysis (void);
-+ unsigned int scev_const_prop (void);
-+
-++bool expression_expensive_p (tree);
-+ extern bool simple_iv (struct loop *, tree, tree, affine_iv *, bool);
-+
-+ /* Returns the loop of the polynomial chrec CHREC. */
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c
-+===================================================================
-+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:09.000000000 +0100
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:43.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -8,5 +8,9 @@
-+ return ns;
-+ }
-+
-+-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "ns % 10000" "optimized" } } */
-++/* This test was originally introduced to test that we transform
-++ to ns % 10000. See the discussion of PR 32044 why we do not do
-++ that anymore. */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "optimized" } } */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "optimized" } } */
-+ /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c
-+===================================================================
-+--- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c 2009-01-28 10:25:50.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
-++/* { dg-do compile } */
-++/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-empty -fdump-tree-final_cleanup" } */
-++
-++int foo (int n)
-++{
-++ while (n >= 45)
-++ n -= 45;
-++
-++ return n;
-++}
-++
-++int bar (int n)
-++{
-++ while (n >= 64)
-++ n -= 64;
-++
-++ return n;
-++}
-++
-++int bla (int n)
-++{
-++ int i = 0;
-++
-++ while (n >= 45)
-++ {
-++ i++;
-++ n -= 45;
-++ }
-++
-++ return i;
-++}
-++
-++int baz (int n)
-++{
-++ int i = 0;
-++
-++ while (n >= 64)
-++ {
-++ i++;
-++ n -= 64;
-++ }
-++
-++ return i;
-++}
-++
-++/* The loops computing division/modulo by 64 should be eliminated. */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Removing empty loop" 2 "empty" } } */
-++
-++/* There should be no division/modulo in the final dump (division and modulo
-++ by 64 are done using bit operations). */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
-++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
-++
-++/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "empty" } } */
-++/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "final_cleanup" } } */
-+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
-+===================================================================
-+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:26:04.000000000 +0100
-++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:27:09.000000000 +0100
-+@@ -3778,7 +3778,12 @@
-+ return false;
-+
-+ cand_value_at (loop, cand, use->stmt, nit, &bnd);
-++
-+ *bound = aff_combination_to_tree (&bnd);
-++ /* It is unlikely that computing the number of iterations using division
-++ would be more profitable than keeping the original induction variable. */
-++ if (expression_expensive_p (*bound))
-++ return false;
-+ return true;
-+ }
+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:14:37.000000000 +0100
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c 2009-01-28 10:17:50.000000000 +0100
+@@ -2716,6 +2716,50 @@
+ scalar_evolution_info = NULL;
+ }
+
++/* Returns true if the expression EXPR is considered to be too expensive
++ for scev_const_prop. */
++
++bool
++expression_expensive_p (tree expr)
++{
++ enum tree_code code;
++
++ if (is_gimple_val (expr))
++ return false;
++
++ code = TREE_CODE (expr);
++ if (code == TRUNC_DIV_EXPR
++ || code == CEIL_DIV_EXPR
++ || code == FLOOR_DIV_EXPR
++ || code == ROUND_DIV_EXPR
++ || code == TRUNC_MOD_EXPR
++ || code == CEIL_MOD_EXPR
++ || code == FLOOR_MOD_EXPR
++ || code == ROUND_MOD_EXPR
++ || code == EXACT_DIV_EXPR)
++ {
++ /* Division by power of two is usually cheap, so we allow it.
++ Forbid anything else. */
++ if (!integer_pow2p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
++ return true;
++ }
++
++ switch (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code))
++ {
++ case tcc_binary:
++ case tcc_comparison:
++ if (expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 1)))
++ return true;
++
++ /* Fallthru. */
++ case tcc_unary:
++ return expression_expensive_p (TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0));
++
++ default:
++ return true;
++ }
++}
++
+ /* Replace ssa names for that scev can prove they are constant by the
+ appropriate constants. Also perform final value replacement in loops,
+ in case the replacement expressions are cheap.
+@@ -2802,12 +2846,6 @@
+ continue;
+
+ niter = number_of_latch_executions (loop);
+- /* We used to check here whether the computation of NITER is expensive,
+- and avoided final value elimination if that is the case. The problem
+- is that it is hard to evaluate whether the expression is too
+- expensive, as we do not know what optimization opportunities the
+- the elimination of the final value may reveal. Therefore, we now
+- eliminate the final values of induction variables unconditionally. */
+ if (niter == chrec_dont_know)
+ continue;
+
+@@ -2838,7 +2876,15 @@
+ /* Moving the computation from the loop may prolong life range
+ of some ssa names, which may cause problems if they appear
+ on abnormal edges. */
+- || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def))
++ || contains_abnormal_ssa_name_p (def)
++ /* Do not emit expensive expressions. The rationale is that
++ when someone writes a code like
++
++ while (n > 45) n -= 45;
++
++ he probably knows that n is not large, and does not want it
++ to be turned into n %= 45. */
++ || expression_expensive_p (def))
+ continue;
+
+ /* Eliminate the PHI node and replace it by a computation outside
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h
+===================================================================
+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:22:47.000000000 +0100
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.h 2009-01-28 10:23:10.000000000 +0100
+@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
+ extern void scev_analysis (void);
+ unsigned int scev_const_prop (void);
+
++bool expression_expensive_p (tree);
+ extern bool simple_iv (struct loop *, tree, tree, affine_iv *, bool);
+
+ /* Returns the loop of the polynomial chrec CHREC. */
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c
+===================================================================
+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:09.000000000 +0100
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34027-1.c 2009-01-28 10:24:43.000000000 +0100
+@@ -8,5 +8,9 @@
+ return ns;
+ }
+
+-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump "ns % 10000" "optimized" } } */
++/* This test was originally introduced to test that we transform
++ to ns % 10000. See the discussion of PR 32044 why we do not do
++ that anymore. */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "optimized" } } */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "optimized" } } */
+ /* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "optimized" } } */
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c
+===================================================================
+--- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr32044.c 2009-01-28 10:25:50.000000000 +0100
+@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
++/* { dg-do compile } */
++/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-empty -fdump-tree-final_cleanup" } */
++
++int foo (int n)
++{
++ while (n >= 45)
++ n -= 45;
++
++ return n;
++}
++
++int bar (int n)
++{
++ while (n >= 64)
++ n -= 64;
++
++ return n;
++}
++
++int bla (int n)
++{
++ int i = 0;
++
++ while (n >= 45)
++ {
++ i++;
++ n -= 45;
++ }
++
++ return i;
++}
++
++int baz (int n)
++{
++ int i = 0;
++
++ while (n >= 64)
++ {
++ i++;
++ n -= 64;
++ }
++
++ return i;
++}
++
++/* The loops computing division/modulo by 64 should be eliminated. */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Removing empty loop" 2 "empty" } } */
++
++/* There should be no division/modulo in the final dump (division and modulo
++ by 64 are done using bit operations). */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "/" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
++/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "%" 0 "final_cleanup" } } */
++
++/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "empty" } } */
++/* { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "final_cleanup" } } */
+Index: gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
+===================================================================
+--- gcc-4.3.2.orig/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:26:04.000000000 +0100
++++ gcc-4.3.2/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c 2009-01-28 10:27:09.000000000 +0100
+@@ -3778,7 +3778,12 @@
+ return false;
+
+ cand_value_at (loop, cand, use->stmt, nit, &bnd);
++
+ *bound = aff_combination_to_tree (&bnd);
++ /* It is unlikely that computing the number of iterations using division
++ would be more profitable than keeping the original induction variable. */
++ if (expression_expensive_p (*bound))
++ return false;
+ return true;
+ }