Re: Ping: Patch for 21562

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>]

On May 26, 2005, at 8:18 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:

> On May 26, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 10:08 -0700, Dale Johannesen wrote:
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01888.html
> > It really seems to me that the problem is verify_flow and expand
> > really need to be fixed.  Any code that assumes block 0 is a
> > successor of ENTRY is broken.
> >
> > Is there some fundamental reason why we can't fix verify_flow and
> > expand?
>
> Not that I know of.  Is there consensus that this is the right thing 
> to do?

On IRC, RTH said it would be hard not to have the successors of ENTRY 
not
be BB zero in RTH.  Jan said was going to get a patch which changes
cfgexpand so that we always get BB 0 as the successor of ENTRY.


Thanks,
Andrew Pinski