https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #15 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 47970
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47970=edit
alternative patch v3
Alternative to last patch. Inserts the debug stmt across the fallthrough edge.
Let
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
jwjagersma at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47941|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #13 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
Is there some point at which debug statements are supposed to be copied
over to the next BBs? That appears to be what
maybe_move_debug_stmts_to_successors (tree-inline.c:2799) does, but it
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to jwjagersma from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> > Some stmt-ends-BB predicates are probably off for asms.
>
> For stmt_ends_bb_p (tree-cfg.c:2763) the call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #11 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Some stmt-ends-BB predicates are probably off for asms.
For stmt_ends_bb_p (tree-cfg.c:2763) the call chain looks like this:
stmt_ends_bb_p ->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Some stmt-ends-BB predicates are probably off for asms.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #9 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
ICE can be replicated with:
```
$ ./cc1plus -O -g -fnon-call-exceptions -I../../gcc/libgcc
../../gcc/libgcc/config/i386/sfp-exceptions.c
void __sfp_handle_exceptions(int)
Analyzing compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #8 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> Ah right, only for -fnon-call-exceptions, I missed that; that is implied
> by stmt_can_throw_internal.
>
> Why only volatile memory operands,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to jwjagersma from comment #5)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> > Pretending any asm can throw would be a pretty serious code degradation.
> >
> > Any asm that is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
jwjagersma at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47936|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #5 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> Pretending any asm can throw would be a pretty serious code degradation.
>
> Any asm that is not volatile cannot throw (and be correct code).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Pretending any asm can throw would be a pretty serious code degradation.
Any asm that is not volatile cannot throw (and be correct code). But
most volatile asm in the wild can never throw, either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #3 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
I don't think it needs to. The user can do this manually with .cfi directives.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93981
--- Comment #1 from jwjagersma at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 47936
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47936=edit
proposed patch
15 matches
Mail list logo
