On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 11:01:22AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand your comment.
>
> The BLOCK_FOR_INSN of the note was NULL. The NOTE_BASIC_BLOCK of the note was
> correct. Are you saying that the BLOCK_FOR_INSN should not have been NULL?
Yeah, I mean the following invariant should hold IMHO:
!NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK_P (insn) || NOTE_BASIC_BLOCK (insn) == BLOCK_FOR_INSN
(insn)
NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK for some bb outside of that bb? That looks fishy.
Haven't bootstrapped/regtested with such a check anywhere, just compiled one
largish C++ testcase with it.
Jakub
