On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > I'm not sure we want to give up this: > > @@ -863,12 +863,13 @@ get_loop_body_in_dom_order (const struct loop *loo > basic_block *tovisit; > int tv; > > + if (loop->latch == EXIT_BLOCK_PTR) > + return get_loop_body (loop); > + > gcc_assert (loop->num_nodes); > > tovisit = XNEWVEC (basic_block, loop->num_nodes); > > - gcc_assert (loop->latch != EXIT_BLOCK_PTR); > - > > assert. It makes sure nobody treats the root loop node as real loop ...
Well, as you can see, get_loop_body does handle this case already. So if you use plain get_loop_body, you get the body of the root node returned. > So, can you special-case this in your dumping routines instead? Sure. > That makes it a dump-only patch and thus ok. (indeed much nicer to look > at loop preserve issues this way!) Ciao! Steven
