From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1634 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2010 10:59:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 1623 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Dec 2010 10:59:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:59:38 +0000 From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/46915] Wrong code is generated for conditional branch followed by zero length asm X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:59:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg01381.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915 Jakub Jelinek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-13 10:59:28 UTC --- Yeah, the insn count for asm is just a guess. You should never put inline asm into a delay slot, you really don't know how big it is or if it is suitable for the delay slot. I guess the bug is in checking just for ASM_INPUT, that should be also testing extract_asm_operands () != NULL_RTX.