On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 11:01:22AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > I'm not sure I understand your comment. > > The BLOCK_FOR_INSN of the note was NULL. The NOTE_BASIC_BLOCK of the note was > correct. Are you saying that the BLOCK_FOR_INSN should not have been NULL?
Yeah, I mean the following invariant should hold IMHO: !NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK_P (insn) || NOTE_BASIC_BLOCK (insn) == BLOCK_FOR_INSN (insn) NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK for some bb outside of that bb? That looks fishy. Haven't bootstrapped/regtested with such a check anywhere, just compiled one largish C++ testcase with it. Jakub