On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 02:35:32PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> ps. Never in a million years would I have expected isolation of
> division by zero to have exposed as many latent issues as it has. Sigh.
The trap insns weren't handled very well before, but we didn't generate
many either. They still
On 03/29/2017 02:44 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 02:35:32PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/29/2017 12:23 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
If combine has added an unconditional trap there will be a new basic
block as well. It will then end up considering the NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 02:35:32PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/29/2017 12:23 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > If combine has added an unconditional trap there will be a new basic
> > block as well. It will then end up considering the NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK
> > as the last_combined_insn, but the
On 03/29/2017 12:23 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
If combine has added an unconditional trap there will be a new basic
block as well. It will then end up considering the NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK
as the last_combined_insn, but then it tries to take the DF_INSN_LUID
of that and that dereferences a NU
