Re: regscan x86 abort

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <19980905225433.A25953@dot.cygnus.com>you write:
  > 
  > --huq684BweRXVnRxX
  > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
  > 
  > The attached function causes a segv in reg_scan_mark_refs because
  > we traverse a REG_WAS_0 note, and find a nil in the INSN stored
  > there.  Scanning the attached insn seems wrong.
  > 
  > 
  > r~
  > 
  > --huq684BweRXVnRxX
  > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
  > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=z
  > 
  > 	* regclass.c (reg_scan_mark_refs): Don't traverse attached insns.
I'm not sure this is right.

If you look down in reg_scan_mark_refs, it handles INSN_LISTs explicitly.
I would be worried that there are cases where we should be looking
at INSNs.

If no such cases exist, then we should also ignore JUMP_INSNs,
CALL_INSNs and resolve what to do with INSN_LISTs.

Did the nil occur in the insn pointed to by the REG_WAS_0 note, or
was there a nil in the actual note itself?

jeff