https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2) > You should use cfarm216 instead: it's way faster than the others and > runs Solaris 11.4, which is the only OS release supported on trunk. I can't reach cfarm216, something with my ssh setup is too old. :( Also, I just realized it can't be a plain NULL basic_block, because that'd have shown a SEGV in resource.c. All the more interest in a way to reproduce on cfarm210 or cfarm211. > > --- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > Sorry. I bet something in reorg actually uses a barrier insn as a > > reference. > > I'll revert those three patches unless I can fix the problem within 24 hours > > (not counting regtest-time). > > Ok. For this night's bootstrap, I'm using the tree at the revision > before the culprit patch. I tried to revert just that one, but failed > (conflicts and manual resolution failed compiling stage 1 libgcc). There's two other commits after the culprit, that depends on it functionally and contextually, so you have to revert those too. Either way, if you prefer to revert (the failing one and the two after that one obviously in opposite order, I'd be thankful. I'll likely land there myself as I currently have no way to reproduce the problem.
