https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114492
Alex Coplan <acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan <acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I think these should be OK. In the case of:
for (unsigned i = 0; i < changes.length (); i++)
gcc_assert (rtl_ssa::restrict_movement_ignoring (*changes[i],
is_changing));
I think this is OK because the pass guarantees to have chosen a singleton move
range for the pair, so we don't rely on the call to restrict_movement_ignoring
updating the move range for any of the changes. Other changes in the set are
either deletions or no-ops in terms of movement. So we call this purely for
checking purposes to make sure we're not attempting something invalid.
Similarly in the case of:
gcc_assert (crtl->ssa->verify_insn_changes (changes));
this is OK because the function doesn't have side effects (other than possibly
dumping).
Discussing this offline with Richard S he suggested asserting that we have
singleton move ranges before calling restrict_movement_ignoring to make that
case more obviously correct, so mine for that improvement (but either way I
think this should be OK).
