Hi!
The following testcase ICEs on the newly added asserts.
Some comments hint that maybe it is fine if CODE_LABEL additions don't
trigger df recomputations, but even if it is not ok,
regstat_bb_compute_calls_crossed doesn't look like an IL verification
routine and for !NONDEBUG_INSN_P it really doesn't need DF_INSN_INFO_GET
for anything, so I think it is best not to get it.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2019-12-10 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR rtl-optimization/92882
* regstat.c (regstat_bb_compute_calls_crossed): Don't check
INSN_UID against DF_INSN_SIZE or use DF_INSN_INFO_GET unless
NONDEBUG_INSN_P.
* gfortran.dg/pr92882.f: New test.
--- gcc/regstat.c.jj 2019-12-09 15:02:30.112287863 +0100
+++ gcc/regstat.c 2019-12-10 13:36:23.231327649 +0100
@@ -324,13 +324,13 @@ regstat_bb_compute_calls_crossed (unsign
FOR_BB_INSNS_REVERSE (bb, insn)
{
+ if (!NONDEBUG_INSN_P (insn))
+ continue;
+
gcc_assert (INSN_UID (insn) < (int) DF_INSN_SIZE ());
struct df_insn_info *insn_info = DF_INSN_INFO_GET (insn);
unsigned int regno;
- if (!NONDEBUG_INSN_P (insn))
- continue;
-
/* Process the defs. */
if (CALL_P (insn))
{
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr92882.f.jj 2019-12-10 13:38:17.737571868
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr92882.f 2019-12-10 13:38:07.453729553 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+C PR rtl-optimization/92882
+C { dg-do compile }
+C { dg-options "-O2 -fno-inline" }
+ INCLUDE 'secnds.f'
Jakub
