https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84468
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Thanks, I can reproduce it with that test case. Checking for the basic block
being null fixes the SEGV for me. Let me retest this and post an update for
review.
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c (revision 257963)
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c (working copy)
@@ -1856,8 +1856,20 @@ maybe_diag_stxncpy_trunc (gimple_stmt_iterator gsi
avoid the truncation warning. */
gsi_next_nondebug (&gsi);
gimple *next_stmt = gsi_stmt (gsi);
+ if (!next_stmt)
+ {
+ /* When there is no statement in the same basic block check
+ the immediate successor block. */
+ if (basic_block bb = gimple_bb (stmt))
+ {
+ basic_block nextbb
+ = EDGE_COUNT (bb->succs) ? EDGE_SUCC (bb, 0)->dest : NULL;
+ gimple_stmt_iterator it = gsi_start_bb (nextbb);
+ next_stmt = gsi_stmt (it);
+ }
+ }
- if (!gsi_end_p (gsi) && is_gimple_assign (next_stmt))
+ if (next_stmt && is_gimple_assign (next_stmt))
{
tree lhs = gimple_assign_lhs (next_stmt);
tree_code code = TREE_CODE (lhs);
