On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 4:25 AM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 04:19:58AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > > > This is wrong. As documented, BB_HEAD needs to be either a CODE_LABEL, or > > > NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK. > > > > ira.cc has > > > > new_insn = emit_insn_before (PATTERN (def_insn), use_insn); > > REG_NOTES (new_insn) = REG_NOTES (def_insn); > > REG_NOTES (def_insn) = 0; > > /* Rescan it to process the notes. */ > > df_insn_rescan (new_insn); > > > > /* Make sure this insn is recognized before reload begins, > > otherwise eliminate_regs_in_insn will die. */ > > INSN_CODE (new_insn) = INSN_CODE (def_insn); > > > > delete_insn (def_insn); > > > > XEXP (reg_equiv[regno].init_insns, 0) = new_insn; > > > > REG_BASIC_BLOCK (regno) = use_bb->index; > > REG_N_CALLS_CROSSED (regno) = 0; > > > > if (use_insn == BB_HEAD (use_bb)) > > BB_HEAD (use_bb) = new_insn; > > > > new_insn isn't CODE_LABEL nor NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK. > > Should it be changed? > > Guess it depends if it survives that way until after the pass or not, if > the pass can tolerate temporary violation, fine, if it survives to next > passes, it is not.
I assume that the IRA code is triggered and works. -- H.J.
