This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] PR56729
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:22:50 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] PR56729
- References: <CABu31nNLS7m1ZAx5tDSWvA4S5-zMQyBaaQ-Yt2tqZXebtdv3jg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Steven Bosscher <email@example.com> wrote:
> It looks like there are places in the middle end that use remove_insn
> on insns that are not actually emitted. This breaks the assert I added
> in df_insn_delete. The patch disables the assert for now. The comment
> before the assert is now even messier than before but I think it's
> better to explain why the assert cannot work than to remove the
> comment and the assert altogether.
> Bootstrapped&tested on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu (also tested 32bits ppc).
> OK for trunk?
> PR middle-end/56729
> * df-scan.c (df_insn_delete): Disable failing assert.
> Index: df-scan.c
> --- df-scan.c (revision 197180)
> +++ df-scan.c (working copy)
> @@ -1158,8 +1158,17 @@ df_insn_delete (rtx insn)
> In any case, we expect BB to be non-NULL at least up to register
> allocation, so disallow a non-NULL BB up to there. Not perfect
> but better than nothing... */
> + /* ??? bb can also be NULL if lower-subreg.c:resolve_simple_mov emits
> + an insn into a sequence and then does delete_insn on it. Not sure
> + if that makes sense, but for now it means this assert cannot work.
> + See PR56738.
> + Disable for now but revisit before the end of GCC 4.9 stage1. */
> +#if 0
> gcc_checking_assert (bb != NULL || reload_completed);
> + if (bb == NULL)
> + return;
> df_grow_bb_info (df_scan);
> df_grow_reg_info ();