------- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-13 22:05 -------
Hmmm, it seems like it is an expand bug, as REG_LABEL is not added at expand
time:
(insn 36 35 37 (set (reg:SI 134)
(high:SI (label_ref:SI 42))) -1 (nil)
(nil))
(insn 37 36 38 (set (reg/f:SI 133)
(lo_sum:SI (reg:SI 134)
(label_ref:SI 42))) -1 (nil)
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (label_ref:SI 42)
(nil)))
(This expand is actually the first switch table and not the second and both
don't have REG_LABEL).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-05-13 22:05:25
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27531
