This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Is it legitmate to have a fallthru succ edge but a different basic block next?

From: "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: "Bingfeng Mei" <bmei at broadcom dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:38:31 +0200
Subject: Re: Is it legitmate to have a fallthru succ edge but a different basic block next?
References: <2E073B3ABB3F664DBA1D1C4D5FB47EF40E537221@NT-IRVA-0752.brcm.ad.broadcom.com>

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Bingfeng Mei <bmei@broadcom.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> I try to locate a problem in GCSE pass and found some suspicious RTL
> code as follows. Is it legitimate to have a "fallthru" succ edge but
> next basic block is a different one?   Thanks.
>
> ...
> ;; Succ edge 10 [91.5%] (fallthru)
>
> ;; Succ edge 9 [8.5%]
>
> ;; Start of basic block ( 8) -> 9
> ...

Yes, this is valid if you are in cfglayout mode.

Gr.
Steven

References:
- Is it legitmate to have a fallthru succ edge but a different basic block next?
  - From: Bingfeng Mei

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]