On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 01:05:30PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> Yeah, I'm testing a followup patch that fixes the call in replace_uses_by
>> (that alone fixes the testcase in the PR).
>
> That patch looks good, but then forwprop has the same
> static void
> tidy_after_forward_propagate_addr (gimple stmt)
> {
> /* We may have turned a trapping insn into a non-trapping insn. */
> if (maybe_clean_or_replace_eh_stmt (stmt, stmt)
> && gimple_purge_dead_eh_edges (gimple_bb (stmt)))
> cfg_changed = true;
> ...
>
> Other spots are maybe ok, so if you want, the
> maybe_cleanup_or_replace_eh_stmt call from gimple_fold_call can be nuked
> afterwards. But what about that lookup_*/tree_could_throw_p check?
> Should it stay?
I don't think so, if we want to prevent fold_stmt from running into such
situation we should do it centrally (similar to the in-place variant). But
I wouldn't go down this route without further evidence (read: a testcase
that we cannot fix otherwise).
Richard.
> Jakub
