> I approved the initial sink patch (maybe not clearly enough). I wasn't entirely happy with that patch. The new version solves this better.
> Can you open > a bugreport about the missing CFG verification and list the set of FAILs > (all errors in some passes similar to the one you fixed in sinking I guess)? > It indeed sounds like something to tackle during next stage1 (unless you > already narrowed down the culprit to a single offender...) Most of the failures were related to transactional memory, and the rest are seemingly solved by forbidding duplication of returns_twice calls. In reply to this email I'm sending three patches, the first is a revised patch for tree-ssa-sink, the second forbids duplication of setjmp-like calls, and the third implements the checks in verify_flow_info: tree-ssa-sink: do not sink to in front of setjmp tree-cfg: do not duplicate returns_twice calls tree-cfg: check placement of returns_twice calls gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/setjmp-7.c | 13 +++++++++++ gcc/tree-cfg.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- gcc/tree-ssa-sink.c | 6 +++++ 3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/setjmp-7.c -- 2.33.1
