[Bug middle-end/50283] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/eh/simd-1.C execution test

[rth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283

--- Comment #16 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-10 21:40:22 UTC ---
Calls are especially problematic, yes.  You've just fixed a bug
for branches; hopefully that's the last of them.

Though if it were a matter of preferences, I would expect that
choosing a non-frame-related insn for the delay slot over a
frame-related insn of otherwise equal priority would produce
less heartburn in consumers even if it's possibly to handle it
within gcc.

You absolutely correct that we ought to have a check for this.