On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:11 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > > On 08/27/2018 05:21 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:05 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > >> > >> Hi. > >> > >> Now we should not meet a degenerated gswitch statements. > >> > >> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. > >> > >> Ready to be installed? > > > > Hum. This relies on us doing CFG cleanup. Do we really want > > find_taken_edge to ICE when called between CFG construction > > and the first such call? That is, I think this kind of "verification" > > belongs in the CFG verifier. Note that there's GIMPLE switches > > before we have a CFG and those are not sanitized (at least > > not that I know of). So we cannot really declare single-case > > switch stmts invalid? > > Thanks for explanation. In case of switch_conversion::expand, may I apply > patch for that? It should not see a degenerated switch, or do I miss > something?
Hopefully not. So that part is OK. Richard. > Martin > > > > > Thanks, > > Richard. > > > >> Martin > >> > >> gcc/ChangeLog: > >> > >> 2018-08-27 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> > >> > >> * tree-cfg.c (find_taken_edge_switch_expr): Replace not possible > >> condition with assert. > >> * tree-switch-conversion.c (switch_conversion::expand): > >> Likewise. > >> --- > >> gcc/tree-cfg.c | 17 +++++++---------- > >> gcc/tree-switch-conversion.c | 9 +-------- > >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > >> > >> >
