Re: [PATCH] Fix fold_stmt ICE (PR c++/49264)

[Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:30:19AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > --- gcc/tree-inline.c.jj ? ? ? ?2011-06-02 10:15:20.000000000 +0200
>> > +++ gcc/tree-inline.c ? 2011-06-03 09:29:15.000000000 +0200
>> > @@ -4108,6 +4108,14 @@ fold_marked_statements (int first, struc
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (fold_stmt (&gsi))
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?{
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?gimple new_stmt;
>> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /* If a builtin at the end of a bb folded into nothing,
>> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?the following loop won't work. ?*/
>> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (gsi_end_p (gsi))
>> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? {
>> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cgraph_update_edges_for_call_stmt (old_stmt, old_decl,
>> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?gimple_build_nop ());
>>
>> This? ?Esp. I don't like the gimple_build_nop () here too much.
>
> Yeah, I've talked about it in my patch comment.
> E.g. cgraph_update_edges_for_call_stmt could accept NULL as new_stmt, or we
> could add e.g.
>
> void
> cgraph_remove_edges_for_call_stmt (gimple old_stmt)
> {
> ?struct cgraph_node *orig = cgraph_get_node (cfun->decl);
> ?struct cgraph_node *node;
> ?struct cgraph_edge *e;
>
> ?gcc_checking_assert (orig);
> ?e = cgraph_edge (orig, old_stmt);
> ?if (e)
> ? ?cgraph_remove_edge (e);
> ?if (orig->clones)
> ? ?for (node = orig->clones; node != orig; )
> ? ? ?{
> ? ? ? ?e = cgraph_edge (node, old_stmt);
> ? ? ? ?if (e)
> ? ? ? ? ?cgraph_remove_edge (e);
> ? ? ? ?if (node->clones)
> ? ? ? ? ?node = node->clones;
> ? ? ? ?else if (node->next_sibling_clone)
> ? ? ? ? ?node = node->next_sibling_clone;
> ? ? ? ?else
> ? ? ? ? ?{
> ? ? ? ? ? ?while (node != orig && !node->next_sibling_clone)
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ?node = node->clone_of;
> ? ? ? ? ? ?if (node != orig)
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ?node = node->next_sibling_clone;
> ? ? ? ? ?}
> ? ? ?}
> }
>
> I think NULL new_stmt would have the advantage that we wouldn't duplicate
> the complex code looping through all kinds of clones.

Yeah, I'd prefer that variant.  Honza?

Richard.

> ? ? ? ?Jakub
>