Ping.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Wei Mi <w...@google.com> wrote: >> But fact is that it is _not_ necessary to split the block because there >> are no outgoing abnormal edges from it. >> >> The verifier failure is an artifact from using the same predicates during >> CFG building and CFG verifying (usually ok, but for this particular >> case it leads to this issue). >> >> So I don't think your patch is the proper way to address this issue >> (while it certainly works). >> >> Instead whether a call can make abnormal gotos should be recorded >> per-call and stored on the gimple-call. Martin - this is exactly >> one of the cases your patch would address? >> > > Thanks for the comment and thanks to Martin's patch. I try the patch. > It works well to address both pr60449 and pr61776 after some > extension. One extension is to replace GF_CALL_LEAF attribute using > GF_CALL_NO_ABNORMAL_GOTO. That is because not only dropping "leaf" > attribute in lto symbol merge could introduce the control flow > verification problem in pr60449, dropping "const/pure" attributes > could introduce the same problem too. It is unnecessary to introduce > per-call attributes for all these three: ECF_LEAF/ECF_CONST/ECF_PURE, > so GF_CALL_NO_ABNORMAL_GOTO is introduced to indicate that a call stmt > has no abnormal goto. > > GF_CALL_NO_ABNORMAL_GOTO will be set according to gimple_call_flags() > once gimple call stmt is created, then updated in execute_fixup_cfg > and cleanup_tree_cfg. > > I posted the extended patch here. I didn't add the noreturn part in > because it has no direct impact on pr60449 and pr61776. I can help > Martin to test and post that part as an independent patch later. > > bootstrap and regression pass on x86_64-linux-gnu. Is it ok? > > Thanks, > Wei.
