Hi, On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> But I'm not sure. I think we should delete this check from > verify_ssa and instead have a corresponding check in > verify_stmts (which already properly walks trees) that > for an SSA name we encounter we do have a properly linked use > (see verify_expr, maybe it's easy to do that for the SSA_NAME > case - at least it's easy without trying to avoid a > FOR_EACH_SSA_USE_OPERAND (, SSA_OP_USE) on the stmt for > each SSA_NAME we encounter). Whatever we do with this check, it should be ensured that it still triggers on gcc.dg/pr45415.c at revision r163821. IIRC to find the cause for this bug caused some more gray hair on my part :) Ciao, Michael.
