Re: Another bug in your lastest checkin.

[Graham Stott <grahams at redhat dot com>]

Jan Hubicka wrote:
> 
> > set_block_for_new_insns requires a basic_block and note an edge.
> > I've no idea how this apparently works assuming that the else part
> > of the code actually gets exercised.
> >
> >       /* If optimization is off, and perhaps in an empty function,
> >          the entry block will have no successors.  */
> >       if (ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR->succ)
> >         {
> >           /* Can't deal with multiple successsors of the entry block.  */
> >           if (ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR->succ->succ_next)
> >             abort ();
> >
> >           insert_insn_on_edge (seq, ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR->succ);
> >           inserted = 1;
> >         }
> >       else
> >         set_block_for_new_insns (emit_insn_after (seq, f),
> >                                  ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR->succ);
> >                                ^requires BB and not EDGE!
> Hmm, the change came from sanity checking every emit_insn, but after
> closer look, it looks like the code is dead now.  We always do have CFG
> built (even when not optimizing) and so we always excercise the first
> part of if.
> 
> Richard, looks sane to just remove the the if?
>
If it is always now supposed to execute the if part then I would
suggest you change the code to keep a sanity check, thus:

       /* If optimization is off, and perhaps in an empty function,
          the entry block will have no successors.  */
       if (! ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR->succ)
         abort ();

       /* Can't deal with multiple successsors of the entry block.  */
       if (ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR->succ->succ_next)
         abort ();

       insert_insn_on_edge (seq, ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR->succ);
       inserted = 1;

> Honza
> >
> > Graham

Graham