On Mon, 3 Jan 2022, Richard Biener wrote: > > @@ -5674,6 +5675,14 @@ gimple_verify_flow_info (void) > > err = 1; > > } > > > > + if (prev_stmt && stmt_starts_bb_p (stmt, prev_stmt)) > > stmt_starts_bb_p is really a helper used during CFG build, I'd rather > test explicitely for a GIMPLE call with ECF_RETURNS_TWICE, or maybe, > verify that iff a block has abnormal predecessors it starts with such > a call (because IIRC we in some cases elide abnormal edges and then > it's OK to move "down" the calls). So yes, if a block has abnormal preds > it should start with a ECF_RETURNS_TWICE call, I think we cannot > verify the reverse reliably - abnormal edges cannot easily be re-built > in late stages (it's a bug that we do so during RTL expansion).
Thanks, I could rewrite the patch along those lines, but I'm not sure where this is going: the ~100 extra FAILs will still be there. What would the next steps be for this patch and the initial tree-ssa-sink patch? Alexander
