[patch, mips] Fix switch statement for mips16 (PR target/56942)

[Steve Ellcey]

Steven and Richard,

I saw the email about the s390 switch statement

        http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg01026.html

and tested this patch on MIPS to see if using NEXT_INSN instead of
next_real_insn fixed PR 56942.  It did, so is this the right long
term fix for MIPS?  Is it OK to check it in?  Since Steven added
an assert in tablejump_p, I did not include any here, though I could
if we thought it was needed.

Steve Ellcey
sell...@mips.com


2013-06-19  Steve Ellcey  <sell...@imgtec.com>

        PR target/56942
        * config/mips/mips.md (casesi_internal_mips16_<mode>):
        Use NEXT_INSN instead of next_real_insn.


diff --git a/gcc/config/mips/mips.md b/gcc/config/mips/mips.md
index ce322d8..b832dda 100644
--- a/gcc/config/mips/mips.md
+++ b/gcc/config/mips/mips.md
@@ -5948,7 +5948,7 @@
    (clobber (reg:SI MIPS16_T_REGNUM))]
   "TARGET_MIPS16_SHORT_JUMP_TABLES"
 {
-  rtx diff_vec = PATTERN (next_real_insn (operands[2]));
+  rtx diff_vec = PATTERN (NEXT_INSN (operands[2]));
 
   gcc_assert (GET_CODE (diff_vec) == ADDR_DIFF_VEC);