Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > thanks for testing. I've bootstrapped/regtested this variant of patch
> > > and comitted it as obvious.
> >
> > Since this is an insn, we should not be copying it as it is just a link to
> > that
> > insn.
> >
> > Attached is a patch which fixes the ICE though I have not bootstrapped and
> > tested
> > it yet.
>
> Lets try to attach the patch this time.
> Index: emit-rtl.c
> ===================================================================
> --- emit-rtl.c (revision 120287)
> +++ emit-rtl.c (working copy)
> @@ -5302,7 +5302,7 @@
> else
> REG_NOTES (new)
> = gen_rtx_INSN_LIST (REG_NOTE_KIND (link),
> - copy_insn_1 (XEXP (link, 0)), REG_NOTES (new));
> + XEXP (link, 0), REG_NOTES (new));
> }
>
> /* Fix the libcall sequences. */
It seems to me this code should just be
for (link = REG_NOTES (insn); link; link = XEXP (link, 1))
if (REG_NOTE_KIND (link) != REG_LABEL)
{
if (GET_CODE (link) == EXPR_LIST)
REG_NOTES (new)
= gen_rtx_EXPR_LIST (REG_NOTE_KIND (link),
copy_rtx (XEXP (link, 0)), REG_NOTES (new));
else
REG_NOTES (new)
= gen_rtx_INSN_LIST (REG_NOTE_KIND (link),
copy_rtx (XEXP (link, 0)), REG_NOTES (new));
}
What do we expect to find in a REG_NOTE that requires the machinery of
copy_insn_1? And calling copy_insn_1 without going through copy_insn
looks very wrong.
Ian
