This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug ipa/65305] [5 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/chkp-strchr.c and FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr63995-2.c
- From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:23:29 +0000
- Subject: [Bug ipa/65305] [5 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/chkp-strchr.c and FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr63995-2.c
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-65305-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65305
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
It looks like we can now have cgraph_edge with null call_stmt so:
Index: tree-sra.c
===================================================================
--- tree-sra.c (revision 221159)
+++ tree-sra.c (working copy)
@@ -5036,6 +5036,8 @@ ipa_sra_check_caller (struct cgraph_node
for (cgraph_edge *cs = node->callers; cs; cs = cs->next_caller)
{
gimple call_stmt = cs->call_stmt;
+ if (!call_stmt)
+ continue;
unsigned count = gimple_call_num_args (call_stmt);
for (unsigned i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
is very likely the way to go.