From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 48270385BF81; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 18:09:39 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 48270385BF81
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1587233379;
 bh=9oECTYbqhcoo4A8MtJQ5kmb8x5gt9+9K5GEZMuL3hdM=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=X4BS5idYOiyd+k5Usa3WCWIoDLOMkDejC8jIqibx8tPuh7vSUnNzEWTVUhDK3jajT
 Rd2TPpd5eoHPdB+i6eZn2tf5l9I1s42kg7P+jWr2TUAP4gzG3E5VerEqjt5XYpxKxk
 g1293WB/sEvLCz0EYDMznKnyBjy+01/1s7Vpm/m0=
From: "law at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/91161] [9/10 Regression] ICE in
 begin_move_insn, at sched-ebb.c:175
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 18:09:39 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: law at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 9.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-91161-4-bpLUKbrZUA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-91161-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-91161-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 18:09:39 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D91161

Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |law at redhat dot com

--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
Yea, I think a NOTE_INSN_DELETED is valid in that location.  So yea, using
NEXT_INSN is probably wrong and we should be using something else  like
next_nonnote_insn.  My only worry with next_nonnote_insn would be if it ski=
pped
something like a block note.  What would be the implications for the schedu=
ler
if it walked through the various note insns?=