This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [tree-ssa-cfg] BIND_EXPR removal


On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 14:47, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> On Oct 7, 2003, at 2:37 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> 

> >
> > Look at where case 114: is..... is that truly allowed? especially
> > *after* the default label????
> whoa.
> that *is* weird.
> I didn't even notice.

how irritating. So, a hunk of code/situation as ugly as this deserves a
really ugly fix :-)

we're in the bmiddle of processing a list of preds when this happens,
and the new split is going to cause our list to change in mid loop. irk.

Give this a shot. This is just rude :-)

If'n it works for you and solves your problem, I'll consider checking it
in, ugliness and all :-)



Andrew

Index: tree-cfg.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/Attic/tree-cfg.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1.4.173
diff -c -p -r1.1.4.173 tree-cfg.c
*** tree-cfg.c	6 Oct 2003 14:34:25 -0000	1.1.4.173
--- tree-cfg.c	7 Oct 2003 19:46:17 -0000
*************** handle_switch_split (basic_block src, ba
*** 3780,3799 ****
  
    /* Insert a goto on all edges except the one from src to this label. */
  
    for (e = dest->pred; e ; e = e->pred_next)
      {
        if (e->src != src)
          {
  	  goto_stmt = build1 (GOTO_EXPR, void_type_node, label);
  	  tmp_tree = PENDING_STMT (e);
  	  SET_PENDING_STMT (e, NULL_TREE);
  	  bsi_insert_on_edge_immediate (e, goto_stmt, NULL, &new_bb);
  	  SET_PENDING_STMT (e, tmp_tree);
  	  e->flags = e->flags & ~EDGE_FALLTHRU;
  
- 	  /* Splitting this edge should never result in a new block.  */
- 	  if (new_bb)
- 	    abort ();
  	}
      }
  
--- 3780,3824 ----
  
    /* Insert a goto on all edges except the one from src to this label. */
  
+ restart_loop:
    for (e = dest->pred; e ; e = e->pred_next)
      {
        if (e->src != src)
          {
+ 	  tmp = bsi_last (e->src);
+ 	  goto_stmt = bsi_stmt (tmp);
+ 	  /* Dont issue a goto if it already goto's this label.  See below 
+ 	     for how this can happen to a new label.  */
+ 	  if (goto_stmt && TREE_CODE (goto_stmt) == GOTO_EXPR
+ 	      && GOTO_DESTINATION (goto_stmt) == label)
+ 	    continue;
+ 
  	  goto_stmt = build1 (GOTO_EXPR, void_type_node, label);
  	  tmp_tree = PENDING_STMT (e);
  	  SET_PENDING_STMT (e, NULL_TREE);
  	  bsi_insert_on_edge_immediate (e, goto_stmt, NULL, &new_bb);
+ 
+ 	  /* So splitting this edge *can* result in another basic block
+ 	     if there is a case label nested inside an if construct, for
+ 	     instance. Yes, this is allowed. blah. 
+ 	     So this is ugly. The edge may no longer be in the edge list we
+ 	     have been traversing, so we have to start over.  First attach any
+ 	     pending insertions to the new edge.  This is why we need to check 
+ 	     for exisiting GOTO's to our label above.  */
+ 	  if (new_bb)
+ 	    {
+ #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
+ 	      /* There ought to be exactly one successor to the new block.  */
+ 	      if (new_bb->succ == NULL || new_bb->succ->succ_next != NULL)
+ 	        abort();
+ #endif
+ 	      SET_PENDING_STMT (new_bb->succ, tmp_tree);
+ 	      new_bb->succ->flags = new_bb->succ->flags & ~EDGE_FALLTHRU;
+ 	      goto restart_loop;
+ 	    }
  	  SET_PENDING_STMT (e, tmp_tree);
  	  e->flags = e->flags & ~EDGE_FALLTHRU;
  
  	}
      }
  


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