On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Why is jump_table_data an active_insn?
> int
> active_insn_p (const_rtx insn)
> {
> return (CALL_P (insn) || JUMP_P (insn)
> || JUMP_TABLE_DATA_P (insn) /* FIXME */
> || (NONJUMP_INSN_P (insn)
> && (! reload_completed
> || (GET_CODE (PATTERN (insn)) != USE
> && GET_CODE (PATTERN (insn)) != CLOBBER))));
> }
>
> It is clear that someone [Steven Bosscher] thought it needs fixing but what's
> the problem with just removing it from the OR-expression?
Places using active_insn_p, next_active_insn, prev_active_insn, etc.,
need to be audited to make sure it's safe to remove JUMP_TABLE_DATA
from the OR-expression.
I've done most of that work, but it needs finishing and for that I
need to find some time.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03122.html
Ciao!
Steven
