[PATCH] Fix fold_stmt ICE (PR c++/49264)

Richard Guenther richard.guenther@gmail.com
Mon Jun 6 11:41:00 GMT 2011


On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:30:19AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > --- gcc/tree-inline.c.jj        2011-06-02 10:15:20.000000000 +0200
>> > +++ gcc/tree-inline.c   2011-06-03 09:29:15.000000000 +0200
>> > @@ -4108,6 +4108,14 @@ fold_marked_statements (int first, struc
>> >                  if (fold_stmt (&gsi))
>> >                    {
>> >                      gimple new_stmt;
>> > +                     /* If a builtin at the end of a bb folded into nothing,
>> > +                        the following loop won't work.  */
>> > +                     if (gsi_end_p (gsi))
>> > +                       {
>> > +                         cgraph_update_edges_for_call_stmt (old_stmt, old_decl,
>> > +                                                            gimple_build_nop ());
>>
>> This?  Esp. I don't like the gimple_build_nop () here too much.
>
> Yeah, I've talked about it in my patch comment.
> E.g. cgraph_update_edges_for_call_stmt could accept NULL as new_stmt, or we
> could add e.g.
>
> void
> cgraph_remove_edges_for_call_stmt (gimple old_stmt)
> {
>  struct cgraph_node *orig = cgraph_get_node (cfun->decl);
>  struct cgraph_node *node;
>  struct cgraph_edge *e;
>
>  gcc_checking_assert (orig);
>  e = cgraph_edge (orig, old_stmt);
>  if (e)
>    cgraph_remove_edge (e);
>  if (orig->clones)
>    for (node = orig->clones; node != orig; )
>      {
>        e = cgraph_edge (node, old_stmt);
>        if (e)
>          cgraph_remove_edge (e);
>        if (node->clones)
>          node = node->clones;
>        else if (node->next_sibling_clone)
>          node = node->next_sibling_clone;
>        else
>          {
>            while (node != orig && !node->next_sibling_clone)
>              node = node->clone_of;
>            if (node != orig)
>              node = node->next_sibling_clone;
>          }
>      }
> }
>
> I think NULL new_stmt would have the advantage that we wouldn't duplicate
> the complex code looping through all kinds of clones.

Yeah, I'd prefer that variant.  Honza?

Richard.

>        Jakub
>



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list