Re: optimization/10862: [tree-ssa] Segfault for (essentially) empty function

[Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>]

The following reply was made to PR optimization/10862; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>
To: bangerth@dealii.org, bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
	gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, law@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org,
	"gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc:  
Subject: Re: optimization/10862: [tree-ssa] Segfault for (essentially)
	empty function
Date: 19 May 2003 11:27:21 -0400

 On Mon, 2003-05-19 at 10:51, bangerth@dealii.org wrote:
 > Synopsis: [tree-ssa] Segfault for (essentially) empty function
 > 
 > Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->law
 > Responsible-Changed-By: bangerth
 > Responsible-Changed-When: Mon May 19 14:51:18 2003
 > Responsible-Changed-Why:
 >     Jeff, you had been doing the tree-ssa C++ stuff, right? Or
 >     is there someone else whom I could bother?
 >
 It's not actually a C++ problem.  It was a bug in DCE when removing a
 conditional that had no basic blocks after it.
 
 >     Besides, apart from this one and 10863 (which triggers 
 >     _really_ frequent on my code), the tree-ssa branch seems
 >     to be in pretty good shape -- thanks!
 >
 I'm glad to hear that.  Thanks for testing!
 
 
 Diego.