On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com> wrote: > According to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg00999.html > on Nov 19, 2009, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 17, 2009, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> This looks odd. SSA DEF operand iteration should walk the PHI defs >>>>>> as well, so the change should not be necessary. >>> >>>>> I thought so, too, but by the time we get there, the operands of the PHI >>>>> stmt have already been disconnected. >>> >>>> It shouldn't be. Please try to figure out why instead. >>> >>> Gotta use a different FOR_EACH macro to handle PHI nodes. >>> >>> s/FOR_EACH_SSA_DEF_OPERAND/FOR_EACH_PHI_OR_STMT_DEF/ fixed it. >>> >>> In order to make sure no other such mistakes had been made in GCC, I >>> added an assertion check in the iterator initializer and adjusted the >>> uses of GIMPLE_PHI nodes that triggered the assertion, but that would >>> have done nothing whatsoever in its absence. I haven't looked into >>> whether doing nothing is correct. >>> >>> Should I check this in? > >> I think we should rather let num_ssa_operands and delink_stmt_imm_use >> ICE on PHIs, but I'd rather do this in stage1 - can you queue this >> patch until then? > > You meant 4.6 stage1, but I missed it. How's it for 4.7 stage1? > Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu and i686-linux-gnu.
Isn't exactly ICEing for num_ssa_operands/delink_stmt_imm_use. So, the op_iter_init change is ok, the other two not - they should either ICE or work for PHIs (by using FOR_EACH_PHI_OR_STMT_USE in them). Thanks, Richard. > > > > -- > Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ > You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi > Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member > Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer > >
