From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30541 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2005 16:34:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 30501 invoked by uid 48); 24 Jan 2005 16:34:23 -0000 Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050124163423.30500.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: java-prs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050118145002.19505.overholt@redhat.com> References: <20050118145002.19505.overholt@redhat.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/19505] [4.0 Regression] Java bytecode ICE in except.c remove_unreachable_regions X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-q1/txt/msg00171.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 16:34 ------- Just a little more information. changing "s = redirect_edge_succ_nodup (e, dest);" to a "return false;" in remove_forwarder_block makes this pass so this is a tree optimization problem. Basically what is happening is that we are forwarding two eh regions to one bb which is just wrong. A better check in remove_forwarder_block is needed to better test for this case. Note this only happens with the java front-end because the java front-end produces a goto from two catches without any code before it (which is not wrong). Making this block 17574 which is the meta-bug for "java" bugs which should be fixed before 4.0 (or are just regressions in 4.0). -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot | |org OtherBugsDependingO| |17574 nThis| | Component|java |tree-optimization Summary|Java bytecode ICE in |[4.0 Regression] Java |except.c |bytecode ICE in except.c |remove_unreachable_regions |remove_unreachable_regions http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19505