From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18098 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2015 16:45:05 -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 Received: (qmail 18006 invoked by uid 55); 5 Jan 2015 16:45:01 -0000 From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/64465] [5 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_flow_info failed Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 16:45:00 -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: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at ucw dot cz X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2015-01/txt/msg00250.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64465 --- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka --- > > execute_fixup_cfg is called from inline_transform, I wonder why it does not > > catch > > this case? Anyway updating things immediately after redirection seems like > > right > > thing to do. Any reason why this is not part of redirect_stmt_to_callee? > > Because the early inliner does not call it. Early inliner should not do any redirection however. > > And the reason why I haven't changed cgraph.c is: > /* We need to defer cleaning EH info on the new statement to > fixup-cfg. We may not have dominator information at this point > and thus would end up with unreachable blocks and have no way > to communicate that we need to run CFG cleanup then. */ > comment, I initially had there the maybe_clean_or_replace_eh_stmt > (e->call_stmt, new_stmt); but that comment made me to reconsider. Which is why > I've limited it in the patch to the inliner (id->call_stmt test), and don't do > this when versioning functions. Hmm, OK, it seems like someone (me?) already tried this :) However I do not see why function versioning should be any safer than inliner use in this respect. Honza