On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > It looks like there are places in the middle end that use remove_insn > on insns that are not actually emitted. This breaks the assert I added > in df_insn_delete. The patch disables the assert for now. The comment > before the assert is now even messier than before but I think it's > better to explain why the assert cannot work than to remove the > comment and the assert altogether. > > Bootstrapped&tested on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu (also tested 32bits ppc). > OK for trunk?
Ok. Thanks, Richard. > Ciao! > Steven > > > PR middle-end/56729 > * df-scan.c (df_insn_delete): Disable failing assert. > > Index: df-scan.c > =================================================================== > --- df-scan.c (revision 197180) > +++ df-scan.c (working copy) > @@ -1158,8 +1158,17 @@ df_insn_delete (rtx insn) > In any case, we expect BB to be non-NULL at least up to register > allocation, so disallow a non-NULL BB up to there. Not perfect > but better than nothing... */ > - > + /* ??? bb can also be NULL if lower-subreg.c:resolve_simple_mov emits > + an insn into a sequence and then does delete_insn on it. Not sure > + if that makes sense, but for now it means this assert cannot work. > + See PR56738. > + Disable for now but revisit before the end of GCC 4.9 stage1. */ > +#if 0 > gcc_checking_assert (bb != NULL || reload_completed); > +#else > + if (bb == NULL) > + return; > +#endif > > df_grow_bb_info (df_scan); > df_grow_reg_info ();
