From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-484014-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 81514 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2015 21:37:50 -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 81481 invoked by uid 48); 19 Apr 2015 21:37:46 -0000
From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/65802] [6 Regression] ICE in redirect_eh_edge_1, at tree-eh.c:2335
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 21:37:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vries 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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-65802-4-3ZNivWunCz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65802-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65802-4@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: 2015-04/txt/msg01566.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65802

--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Before the patch series, at 011.cfg we had this representation:
...
;;   basic block 2, loop depth 0, count 0, freq 0, maybe hot
;;    prev block 0, next block 3, flags: (NEW, REACHABLE)
;;    pred:       ENTRY (FALLTHRU)
  D.2342 = cD.2333.gp_offsetD.5;
  if (D.2342 >= 48)
    goto <bb 4>;
  else
    goto <bb 3>;
;;    succ:       4 (TRUE_VALUE)
;;                3 (FALSE_VALUE)

;;   basic block 3, loop depth 0, count 0, freq 0, maybe hot
;;    prev block 2, next block 4, flags: (NEW, REACHABLE)
;;    pred:       2 (FALSE_VALUE)
  D.2344 = cD.2333.reg_save_areaD.8;
  D.2345 = cD.2333.gp_offsetD.5;
  D.2346 = (sizetype) D.2345;
  addr.0D.2339 = D.2344 + D.2346;
  D.2347 = cD.2333.gp_offsetD.5;
  D.2348 = D.2347 + 8;
  cD.2333.gp_offsetD.5 = D.2348;
  goto <bb 5>;
;;    succ:       5 (FALLTHRU)

;;   basic block 4, loop depth 0, count 0, freq 0, maybe hot
;;    prev block 3, next block 5, flags: (NEW, REACHABLE)
;;    pred:       2 (TRUE_VALUE)
  D.2349 = cD.2333.overflow_arg_areaD.7;
  addr.0D.2339 = D.2349;
  D.2350 = D.2349 + 8;
  cD.2333.overflow_arg_areaD.7 = D.2350;
;;    succ:       5 (FALLTHRU)

;;   basic block 5, loop depth 0, count 0, freq 0, maybe hot
;;    prev block 4, next block 6, flags: (NEW, REACHABLE)
;;    pred:       3 (FALLTHRU)
;;                4 (FALLTHRU)
  d.1D.2351 = MEM[(intD.9 * * {ref-all})addr.0D.2339];
  dD.2334 = d.1D.2351;
  eD.2335 = &dD.2334;
  __asm__("" : "=d" eD.2335);
  [LP 1] # USE = anything 
  # CLB = anything 
  m_fn1D.2327 (&aD.2330);
;;    succ:       9 (EH)
;;                6 (FALLTHRU)
...

There's no exception connected to the whole va_arg sequence.

So the question is: should ifn_va_arg have ECF_NOTHROW?