From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-352730-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14012 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2011 22:51:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 14001 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Apr 2011 22:51:32 -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; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:51:28 +0000
From: "law at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/48389] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE: in make_edges, at cfgbuild.c:319 with -mtune=pentiumpro
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: law at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: law at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.5.3
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-48389-4-QreqnobawF@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-48389-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-48389-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:51:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00634.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389

--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> 2011-04-06 22:51:26 UTC ---
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/06/11 15:52, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
> 
> --- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-04-06 21:52:54 UTC ---
> OK, not quite. We somehow have a barrier _inside_ a basic block, and that's
> somehow a problem after the patch but not before?!
I tried to warn you that it wasn't as easy as just moving hte call to
rebuild_jump_labels :-)

jeff

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNnO5iAAoJEBRtltQi2kC7y1kH/R+nRv2iL79CgbPFxWYBTX44
6Fb7f72e6VdymlXu3xOSvkQ3em+4AdWzjay9o5UWRIQSFUuFgS41Yc9z/UR0uqQd
OVwdX56kDFJaDfCX0XLjtddjiMN2js2jxiiXlGr1nq2sprWGFEabRxSmU6KqhN+Z
hdrXH18h2nOe9KjVfshZrUgM80UxhykorjuWo7d+TBwARU21C051OSRwvAYr7I3o
anYEBBzAvw2RzRyyUOVzVi24ErTyY+ZIn2wXJp9mIJmHKsdZMZCzYz4RGLysmnw5
gyzR6NsOU6st0K4SsLSqMWBIBddP5QI5Z+wEMiYUiu7Qto8lC3uE8xE3Edf7ja8=
=2qbJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----