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: Inconsistent next_bb info when EXIT is a successor

From: Andrey Belevantsev <abel at ispras dot ru>
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:03:04 +0300
Subject: Re: Inconsistent next_bb info when EXIT is a successor
References: <45E85A1B.3020801@ispras.ru> <571f6b510703021308r77580340ve4a7650c50cd7c60@mail.gmail.com>

Steven Bosscher wrote:

No. The condition you're checking is simply not true in cfglayout
mode. The whole point of cfglayout mode is to get rid of the
requirement that basic blocks are serial. That means a fallthru edge
in cfglayout mode doesn't have to go to next_bb. It can go to *any*
bb.

Yes, but I'm not in cfglayout mode, because I'm either in sched1 or sched2. In that case, should this condition be preserved or not?

Andrey

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Inconsistent next_bb info when EXIT is a successor
  - From: Steven Bosscher

References:
- Inconsistent next_bb info when EXIT is a successor
  - From: Andrey Belevantsev
- Re: Inconsistent next_bb info when EXIT is a successor
  - From: Steven Bosscher

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