On 6/6/25 12:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 2:08 AM Vineet Gupta <vine...@rivosinc.com> wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
* emit-rtl.cc (next_nonnote_nondebug_insn): Update comments.
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vine...@rivosinc.com>
---
gcc/emit-rtl.cc | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/emit-rtl.cc b/gcc/emit-rtl.cc
index 3f453cda67ed..65e0f1e6d8d6 100644
--- a/gcc/emit-rtl.cc
+++ b/gcc/emit-rtl.cc
@@ -3689,7 +3689,11 @@ next_nonnote_nondebug_insn (rtx_insn *insn)
/* Return the next insn after INSN that is not a NOTE nor DEBUG_INSN,
but stop the search before we enter another basic block. This
- routine does not look inside SEQUENCEs. */
+ routine does not look inside SEQUENCEs.
+ NOTE: This can potentially bleed into next BB. If current insn is
+ last insn of BB, followed by a code_label before the start of
+ the next BB, code_label will be returned. But this is the
+ behavior rest of gcc assumes/relies on e.g. get_last_bb_insn. */
To me this shows while a nice try, the abstraction this function provides
is not too useful?
I think the concept is useful, the problem is we've got code that
depends on the broken semantics in the case Vineet referenced.
Jeff
