https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91161
Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> ---
Yea, I think a NOTE_INSN_DELETED is valid in that location. So yea, using
NEXT_INSN is probably wrong and we should be using something else like
next_nonnote_insn. My only worry with next_nonnote_insn would be if it skipped
something like a block note. What would be the implications for the scheduler
if it walked through the various note insns?
