On 5/4/07, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2007, at 2:15 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hm no. Actually you're right. For the explicit goto we do need the
> separate basic block, because, as you said, we always end up
stepping
> onto the break if it's treated as an implicit goto. Hmm... But
that
> still feels wrong somehow. I need to think this over some more...
> Maybe we can still fix this in cfgexpand instead of adding extra
basic
> blocks.
Hi Steven,
are you still working on this problem ?
I've tried a few things, but nothings works the way I want it to.
Your patch will of course work. I still don't like it very much that
we need extra basic blocks. We also have to be careful to produce the
same code with and without -g. But there doesn't seem to be another
practical way fix this bug. I've clearly underestimated this problem.