------- Comment #21 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-19 23:10 ------- I done bootstrap tests for the gcc-4.0.x branch. I bootstrapped all default languages plus ada with and without the patch. There were no regressions. There was also no failure as reported in the PR, which seemed funny, until I reread the PR.
The failures reported here only happen with --enable-checking. So what we have here is a minor internal inconsistency, which has caused no known end user problems. From my investigation, I think the worst this problem will cause is missed optimizations. Since nothing is seriously broken, I think applying the patch to gcc-4.0 branch is an unnecessary risk. I no longer think my patch is completely safe, as I now think I screwed up. I think there are 3 kinds of edges we need to deal with here, EH edges, abnormal call EH edges, and abnormal call non-EH edges, and we need to perform both tests for the abnormal call EH edges instead of switching the order of the tests as I did. I need to look at this a bit more and check to see if this is the case. If I did screw up, then I've got plenty of time to fix this before the gcc-4.1 release so things are OK there. But on the gcc-4.0.x branch, I'd be making things worse than they already are. Hence, I'd rather leave well enough alone on the gcc-4.0.x branch. In summary, I think we should close this as fixed in gcc-4.1 and as a wontfix for gcc-4.0. Unless someone wants to argue otherwise. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17356
