On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 08:21:47PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/08/2015 08:09 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >The code mistakenly thinks any cond_jump has two successors. This is
> >not true if both destinations are the same, as can happen with weird
> >patterns as in the PR.
> >
> >Bootstrappe
On 11/08/2015 08:09 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
The code mistakenly thinks any cond_jump has two successors. This is
not true if both destinations are the same, as can happen with weird
patterns as in the PR.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64-linux; also tested the simplified
test in the P
The code mistakenly thinks any cond_jump has two successors. This is
not true if both destinations are the same, as can happen with weird
patterns as in the PR.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64-linux; also tested the simplified
test in the PR on an x86_64-linux cross.
Sorry for the breakage.