http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-03-28 07:59:59 UTC --- On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, abel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106 > > --- Comment #18 from Andrey Belevantsev <abel at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-27 > 14:08:23 UTC --- > (In reply to comment #17) > > Looks reasonable. Though I think that whoever removed the fallthru > > edge should have adjusted the flags on the others. > That's simply delete_basic_block at cfgcleanup.c:2612 -- we have block 2 with > two successors 4 and 5, and block 4 is trivially dead (empty, no succ, etc.), > so when removing block 4 we just remove the 2->4 edge which is the only > fallthru one. Which seems fine as the asm in question is seen by the rest of > code as an unconditional jump then. Only when we remove it, we get no jump > and > still no fallthru bit, which confuses purge_dead_edges. I see.
