From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-497224-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 121924 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2015 08:36:46 -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 121667 invoked by uid 48); 15 Sep 2015 08:36:37 -0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/67563] [5/6 Regression] verify_flow_info failed
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 08:36:00 -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: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-67563-4-XVRcwglHxX@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-67563-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-67563-4@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: 2015-09/txt/msg01202.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67563

--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Ok, so we are somewhat inconsistent in whether fold_stmt () performs EH
transfer
from old to new stmts (even on the 4.9 branch).  What triggers here is that
the new replace_call_with_value does it while update_call_from_tree does not
(we're replacing with a NOP).  Then the inliner does (through versioning):

                              if (maybe_clean_or_replace_eh_stmt (old_stmt,
                                                                  new_stmt))
                                gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges (
                                  BASIC_BLOCK_FOR_FN (cfun, first));

but we already transfered EH info so maybe_clean_or_replace_eh_stmt returns
false.  Other callers of fold_stmt like tree-ssa-forwprop.c or the SSA
propagators
expect the same (not transfered EH info).  Testing whether never doing that
from fold_stmt works out ...