From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-433923-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5150 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2013 11:02:43 -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
Received: (qmail 4287 invoked by uid 48); 8 Nov 2013 11:02:08 -0000
From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/59019] [4.9 regression] ICE in advance_target_bb, at sched-rgn.c:3561
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 11:02:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-59019-4-mN0uM2yQpe@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59019-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59019-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00700.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59019

--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Always considering trap-if as ending a BB appears to be a bit of a rathole. 
> Every time I squash one issue, another raises its head.

A little unexpected I'd say, what kind of issues does that introduce?

> I did find that combine.c already has some bits to recognize when it does
> something that may muck up the CFG and tries to compensate, it just doesn't
> hadle the situation around trap-if.
> 
> I'm going to see if I can proof of concept a fix in that code.  Of course
> this is a pass specific fix, but as I look deeper, more memories keep coming
> back -- we've had special code in cse.c to deal with similar situations, so
> maybe adding another case for combine isn't that bad after all.

See existing examples in split_all_insns and lra.