On 08/27/2018 05:21 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:05 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> Now we should not meet a degenerated gswitch statements. >> >> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. >> >> Ready to be installed? > > Hum. This relies on us doing CFG cleanup. Do we really want > find_taken_edge to ICE when called between CFG construction > and the first such call? That is, I think this kind of "verification" > belongs in the CFG verifier. Note that there's GIMPLE switches > before we have a CFG and those are not sanitized (at least > not that I know of). So we cannot really declare single-case > switch stmts invalid?
Thanks for explanation. In case of switch_conversion::expand, may I apply patch for that? It should not see a degenerated switch, or do I miss something? Martin > > Thanks, > Richard. > >> Martin >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> 2018-08-27 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> >> >> * tree-cfg.c (find_taken_edge_switch_expr): Replace not possible >> condition with assert. >> * tree-switch-conversion.c (switch_conversion::expand): >> Likewise. >> --- >> gcc/tree-cfg.c | 17 +++++++---------- >> gcc/tree-switch-conversion.c | 9 +-------- >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) >> >>
