https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68906
--- Comment #3 from Yuri Rumyantsev <ysrumyan at gmail dot com> --- I've prepared simple fix which cures ICE. I will send it for review tomorrow. 2015-12-15 12:50 GMT+03:00 jakub at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org>: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68906 > > Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > This doesn't look to me like a mere omission to invalidate debug stmts after > some stmt move that (correctly) has not considered debug stmts when > determining > if they should be moved or not, but it looks to me like wrong-code > transformation. > Before unswitch, if c is non-zero, we have endless loop, but during > unswitching > it is wrongly changed to branch to the bb that returns instead. > Say if you compile with -O3 (no -g): > int a; > volatile int b; > short c, d; > int > fn1 () > { > int e; > for (;;) > { > a = 3; > if (c) > continue; > e = 0; > for (; e > -30; e--) > if (b) > { > int f = e; > return d; > } > } > } > > int > main () > { > c = 1; > asm volatile ("" : : "m" (c) : "memory"); > fn1 (); > __builtin_abort (); > } > > then before the change this would just hang (expected), now it aborts instead. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug.
