> Or we could just change "blockage" and wait for the next bug report.
That's my suggestion, yes. > Alternatively, we can arrange for the bypass functions to not ICE. We > can do that specific to these rs6000 pipeline descriptions, by having > our own version of store_data_bypass_p; or we can make that function > work for all insns (its definition works fine for insn pairs where > not both the producer and consumer are SETs). That's what Kelvin's > patch does. What is the value in ICEing here? Telling the back-end writer that something may be wrong somewhere instead of silently accepting nonsense? How long have all the assertions been there? -- Eric Botcazou
