http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
--- Comment #9 from ccoutant at google dot com --- >>> + if (!active_insn_p (insn)) >>> + continue; >> >> I'm not clear on why this is needed. Is it because after the >> change_scope, insn will now be a NOTE? If that's it, just put the >> continue in the previous if clause. > > Because the notes were being skipped by the iteration over > instructions, which previously only walked active instructions (notes > are not active instructions). So to see the switch section note I had > to walk all instructions, and just skip non-active instructions after > I am done checking for the note of interest. Oh, right. I didn't notice the change in the for loop. -cary
