From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-484031-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 130486 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2015 08:42:58 -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 130455 invoked by uid 48); 20 Apr 2015 08:42:55 -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: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:42:00 -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-Tk0ZywN5P6@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/msg01583.txt.bz2

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

--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (In reply to vries from comment #6)
> > (In reply to vries from comment #5)
> > > So the question is: should ifn_va_arg have ECF_NOTHROW?
> > 
> > Adding ECF_NOTHROW to ifn_va_arg also fixes the ICE.
> > 
> > And at gimplify_va_arg_expr, the VA_ARG_EXPR tree is non-throwing:
> 
> Is that always the case (try -fnon-call-exceptions)?  Then doing that looks
> obvious.
> 
> Richard.
> 

Yep, that's also the case with -fnon-call-exceptions:
...
(gdb) call debug_generic_expr (*expr_p)
VA_ARG_EXPR <c>
(gdb) call tree_could_throw_p (*expr_p )
$1 = false
(gdb) p flag_non_call_exceptions
$2 = 1
...