------- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-05-05 16:28 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created an attachment (id=17803)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17803&action=view) [edit]
> fix for the problem
>
> I'm regstrapping this patch, it fixes the problem in the testcase.
>
Shouldn't
+ {
+ rtx insn;
+ remove_edge (false_edge);
+ /* Now, we have a single successor block, if we have insns to
+ insert on the remaining edge we potentially will insert
+ it at the end of this block (if the dest block isn't feasible)
+ in order to avoid splitting the edge. This insertion will take
+ place in front of the last jump. But we might have emitted
+ multiple jumps (conditional and one unconditional) to the
+ same destination. Inserting in front of the last one then
+ is a problem. See PR 40021. We fix this by deleting all
+ jumps except the last unconditional one. */
+ insn = PREV_INSN (get_last_insn ());
+ /* Make sure we have an unconditional jump. Otherwise we're
+ confused. */
+ gcc_assert (JUMP_P (insn) && !any_condjump_p (insn));
+ for (insn = PREV_INSN (insn); insn != BB_HEAD (bb);)
+ {
+ insn = PREV_INSN (insn);
+ if (JUMP_P (NEXT_INSN (insn)))
+ delete_insn (NEXT_INSN (insn));
+ }
+ }
in a standalone function since it is used twice?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40021
