This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/64465] [5 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_flow_info failed
- From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 15:57:04 +0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/64465] [5 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_flow_info failed
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-64465-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64465
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6)
> > Updated patch that works on this testcase. From the cgraph.c comments, it
> > looks
> > like e.g. during function versioning we rely on fixup_cfg to fix it up, but
> > during inlining I think we need to do it immediately. TODO_cleanup_cfg is on
> > during inlining.
>
> execute_fixup_cfg is called from inline_transform, I wonder why it does not
> catch
> this case? Anyway updating things immediately after redirection seems like
> right
> thing to do. Any reason why this is not part of redirect_stmt_to_callee?
Because the early inliner does not call it.
And the reason why I haven't changed cgraph.c is:
/* We need to defer cleaning EH info on the new statement to
fixup-cfg. We may not have dominator information at this point
and thus would end up with unreachable blocks and have no way
to communicate that we need to run CFG cleanup then. */
comment, I initially had there the maybe_clean_or_replace_eh_stmt
(e->call_stmt, new_stmt); but that comment made me to reconsider. Which is why
I've limited it in the patch to the inliner (id->call_stmt test), and don't do
this when versioning functions.