Re: [RFC PATCH] tree-ssa-sink: do not sink to in front of setjmp

[Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>]

On Mon, 3 Jan 2022, Richard Biener wrote:

> > @@ -5674,6 +5675,14 @@ gimple_verify_flow_info (void)
> >                err = 1;
> >              }
> >
> > +         if (prev_stmt && stmt_starts_bb_p (stmt, prev_stmt))
> 
> stmt_starts_bb_p is really a helper used during CFG build, I'd rather
> test explicitely for a GIMPLE call with ECF_RETURNS_TWICE, or maybe,
> verify that iff a block has abnormal predecessors it starts with such
> a call (because IIRC we in some cases elide abnormal edges and then
> it's OK to move "down" the calls).  So yes, if a block has abnormal preds
> it should start with a ECF_RETURNS_TWICE call, I think we cannot
> verify the reverse reliably - abnormal edges cannot easily be re-built
> in late stages (it's a bug that we do so during RTL expansion).

Thanks, I could rewrite the patch along those lines, but I'm not sure where
this is going: the ~100 extra FAILs will still be there. What would the next
steps be for this patch and the initial tree-ssa-sink patch?

Alexander