------- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2004-11-16 04:25 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE with
-funroll-loops
On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 17:50 +0000, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-14
> 17:49 -------
> Well, if unshare_expr is invalid for SWITCH_EXPRs, I guess you should either
> do
> your check within unshare_expr itself, or at least add a gcc_assert() to
> unshare_expr so that we check that it is never called with a SWITCH_EXPR. I
> would go for the former, so that the users don't have to do the same check
> externally.
After poking at this in various ways today, I think we're going to be
best off losing the CASE_LEADER idea for now.
I couldn't come up with anything I liked in terms of changes to the
node copying code.
I'm testing changes to introduce using the edge to cases hash table
during thread_jumps and split_critical_edges which ought to keep us
from regressing on 15524 when I remove the CASE_LEADER code.
jeff
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18478
