> > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > thanks for testing. I've bootstrapped/regtested this variant of patch
> > > > > and comitted it as obvious.
> > > >
> > > > Since this is an insn, we should not be copying it as it is just a link
> > > > to that
> > > > insn.
> > > >
> > > > Attached is a patch which fixes the ICE though I have not bootstrapped
> > > > and tested
> > > > it yet.
> > >
> > > Lets try to attach the patch this time.
> >
> > It seems to me this code should just be
> >
> > for (link = REG_NOTES (insn); link; link = XEXP (link, 1))
> > if (REG_NOTE_KIND (link) != REG_LABEL)
> > {
> > if (GET_CODE (link) == EXPR_LIST)
> > REG_NOTES (new)
> > = gen_rtx_EXPR_LIST (REG_NOTE_KIND (link),
> > copy_rtx (XEXP (link, 0)), REG_NOTES (new));
> > else
> > REG_NOTES (new)
> > = gen_rtx_INSN_LIST (REG_NOTE_KIND (link),
> > copy_rtx (XEXP (link, 0)), REG_NOTES (new));
> > }
> >
> > What do we expect to find in a REG_NOTE that requires the machinery of
> > copy_insn_1? And calling copy_insn_1 without going through copy_insn
> > looks very wrong.
>
> Here is a better patch which also speeds up this code by fixing up
> the libcall notes in that loop.
>
> I tested it on the preprocessed source that Andreas sent me but
> I don't have time to do a full bootstrap till tommorrow.
>
> ChangeLog:
>
> * emit-rtl.c (emit_copy_of_insn_after): Copy REG_LIBCALL note specially.
> Copy REG_RETVAL not specially and fix it and the referencing
> REG_LIBCALL note.
> Use copy_rtx instead of copy_insn_1 for EXPR_LIST note.
> Abort if we get a INSN_LIST for the note.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
Also I should mention, this also fixes a possible bug with libcalls that
are embedded in one another. Before we were just assuming if we have a
REG_RETVAL,
then the previous REG_LIBCALL would be the start of the libcall but that would
be
incorrect with embedded libcalls.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
