From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-438464-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6141 invoked by alias); 24 Dec 2013 20:22:34 -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 6087 invoked by uid 48); 24 Dec 2013 20:22:29 -0000
From: "steven at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/59285] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/builtin-unreachable-6.c:17:1: internal compiler error: in rtl_verify_fallthru, at cfgrtl.c:2862
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 20:22:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: steven at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: law at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-59285-4-1rixoeqUFn@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59285-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59285-4@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: 2013-12/txt/msg02119.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59285

Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |steven at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #8)
> I have multiple fixes.  Steven and I disagree on which is better.  
> 
> Having Richi or Jakub chime in with their opinions would help -- if they
> agree with Steven, then I'll go with the majority.  If they prefer mine,
> then that's what we'll go with.

I've proposed an alternative here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg01871.html

It's not quite perfect, but it's conservative.

IMHO we should address the bigger issue (what does builtin_unreachable mean,
also on non-cond_exec targets?) for the next GCC stage1.