On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Bernd Schmidt <bschm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 12/16/2016 12:49 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
>> But as this testcase shows, this breaks when the default label shares a
>> label
>> with another case. On this testcase, when we reach the switch, we know
>> that
>> argc is either 1, 2, or 3. So by the time we reach vrp2, the IR will have
>> been optimized to
>>
>> switch (argc) {
>> default:
>> case 3:
>> // argc will be considered 1 despite the case 3
>> break;
>> case 2:
>> ...
>> }
>
>
> Shouldn't we just remove the "case 3:" from the switch in this case? Would
> that fix things?
We probably should indeed. But can we rely on this?
Richard.
>
> Bernd
