On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:27:42AM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > > Isn't it cheaper to do that before we scan all the sequences? Thus, > > I'd expect BLOCK_FOR_INSN to be NULL if the insn is in a sequence? > > Like simply > > Actually, on a third look, the emit-rtl.c changes aren't needed, > apparently NEXT_INSN even in cfglayout mode is NULL for the in bb > insns only if it is equal to get_last_insn (), unless in the header/footer > sequences, but for those one shouldn't call remove_insn. > > To fix this bug the > + /* The above might add a BARRIER as BB_END, but as barriers > + aren't valid parts of a bb, remove_insn doesn't update > + BB_END if it is a barrier. So adjust BB_END here. */ > + while (BB_END (a) != first && BARRIER_P (BB_END (a))) > + BB_END (a) = PREV_INSN (BB_END (a)); > hunk is all that is needed (and the remaining cfgrtl.c hunks > just a nice to have cleanup, could be postponed for 4.8). > Without this BB_END (a) is a barrier, but deleted one, so get_last_insn () > was actually moved to some insn before it and therefore when we > emit_insn_after_noloc the b bb unchained sequence, it doesn't match > get_last_insn () when it should. > > I'll bootstrap/regtest now just that single hunk, is that ok for > trunk/4.6/4.5?
Yes. Thanks, Richard.
