> Because it brings in the JUMP_TABLE_DATA mess into the picture? Some of the > places already guard it with INSN_P and similar checks and do more things > than just counting the insns under those conditionals, so in other places > one can't just use say prev_active_insn or next_active_insn anyway, the > insn type has to be checked then and thus active_insn_p would become just a > fancy way of checking for USE/CLOBBER.
Yes, I'd go for this patch first, because the ICE is a regression on the 4.8 branch and presumably needs to be fixed there too. But I agree that in the long run we should work towards unifying the various routines and predicates dealing with "active" insns. -- Eric Botcazou
