[Bug middle-end/42363] [4.5 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed for gcc.c-torture/compile/pr37913.c -O1 -g

["rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-01-06 16:48 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> By the same argument, shouldn't we drop the assignment early, and make it a
> non-assigning call?

Sure - fixing this during gimplification would be fine with me.  I'm not
sure it cannot happen via later folding an indirect call to a call that
we only then figure is noreturn (maybe there is folding already for that
case - you might want to double-check).

> The assignment is also supposed to occur after the call,
> although it's not denoted in a separate statement, but SSA analysis doesn't
> complain about it.  Shouldn't it?

Well, the assignment in a call stmt is after the call.  So we just
define it to be correct (I can't see of a better way encoding it - see
also the issues with exceptions).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42363