On 7/27/17 12:21 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> The test case for PR81564 exposes an issue where the case labels for a
>> switch statement point to blocks that have already been removed by an
>> earlier call to cleanup_tree_cfg(). In that case
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> The test case for PR81564 exposes an issue where the case labels for a
> switch statement point to blocks that have already been removed by an
> earlier call to cleanup_tree_cfg(). In that case, the code in
> group_case_labels_stmt() that doe
On 7/27/17 2:48 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> The fix here is to just treat case labels that point to blocks that have
>> already been deleted similarly to case labels that point to the default
>> case statement, by removing them.
>>
>> This p
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> The test case for PR81564 exposes an issue where the case labels for a
> switch statement point to blocks that have already been removed by an
> earlier call to cleanup_tree_cfg(). In that case, the code in
> group_case_labels_stmt() that do
The test case for PR81564 exposes an issue where the case labels for a
switch statement point to blocks that have already been removed by an
earlier call to cleanup_tree_cfg(). In that case, the code in
group_case_labels_stmt() that does:
base_bb = label_to_block (CASE_LABEL (base_case));
...r
