From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-387348-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20859 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2012 08:01:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 20813 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Mar 2012 08:01:00 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 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, 28 Mar 2012 08:00:47 +0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/51106] [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE in move_insn, at haifa-sched.c:2314
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:02:00 -0000
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: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51106-4-0VOQEESu68@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51106-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51106-4@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
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: 2012-03/txt/msg02401.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106

--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-03-28 07:59:59 UTC ---
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, abel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
> 
> --- Comment #18 from Andrey Belevantsev <abel at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-27 14:08:23 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > Looks reasonable.  Though I think that whoever removed the fallthru
> > edge should have adjusted the flags on the others.
> That's simply delete_basic_block at cfgcleanup.c:2612 -- we have block 2 with
> two successors 4 and 5, and block 4 is trivially dead (empty, no succ, etc.),
> so when removing block 4 we just remove the 2->4 edge which is the only
> fallthru one.  Which seems fine as the asm in question is seen by the rest of
> code as an unconditional jump then.  Only when we remove it, we get no jump and
> still no fallthru bit, which confuses purge_dead_edges.

I see.