This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/51106] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE in move_insn, at haifa-sched.c:2314
- From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:59:59 +0000
- Subject: [Bug target/51106] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE in move_insn, at haifa-sched.c:2314
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-51106-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-03-28 07:59:59 UTC ---
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, abel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
>
> --- Comment #18 from Andrey Belevantsev <abel at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-27 14:08:23 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > Looks reasonable. Though I think that whoever removed the fallthru
> > edge should have adjusted the flags on the others.
> That's simply delete_basic_block at cfgcleanup.c:2612 -- we have block 2 with
> two successors 4 and 5, and block 4 is trivially dead (empty, no succ, etc.),
> so when removing block 4 we just remove the 2->4 edge which is the only
> fallthru one. Which seems fine as the asm in question is seen by the rest of
> code as an unconditional jump then. Only when we remove it, we get no jump and
> still no fallthru bit, which confuses purge_dead_edges.
I see.