[Bug rtl-optimization/91161] [9/10 Regression] ICE in begin_move_insn, at sched-ebb.c:175
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91161 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 9.3.0 has been released, adjusting target milestone.
[Bug rtl-optimization/91161] [9/10 Regression] ICE in begin_move_insn, at sched-ebb.c:175
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91161 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Yea, I think a NOTE_INSN_DELETED is valid in that location. So yea, using NEXT_INSN is probably wrong and we should be using something else like next_nonnote_insn. My only worry with next_nonnote_insn would be if it skipped something like a block note. What would be the implications for the scheduler if it walked through the various note insns?
[Bug rtl-optimization/91161] [9/10 Regression] ICE in begin_move_insn, at sched-ebb.c:175
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91161 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.2 |9.3 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 9.2 has been released.
[Bug rtl-optimization/91161] [9/10 Regression] ICE in begin_move_insn, at sched-ebb.c:175
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91161 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code Priority|P3 |P2 Summary|[10 Regression] ICE in |[9/10 Regression] ICE in |begin_move_insn, at |begin_move_insn, at |sched-ebb.c:175 |sched-ebb.c:175
[Bug rtl-optimization/91161] [9/10 Regression] ICE in begin_move_insn, at sched-ebb.c:175
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91161 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov --- With -fno-dce, a NOTE_INSN_DELETED_LABEL appears between the last "real" insn in the basic block (a sibcall) and a barrier rtx: (call_insn/u/c 20 19 12 3 (call (mem:QI (symbol_ref:DI ("ni") [flags 0x3] ) [0 ni S1 A8]) (const_int 0 [0])) "pr91161.c":23:7 679 {*call} (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 5 di) (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:QI 0 ax) (expr_list:REG_CALL_DECL (symbol_ref:DI ("ni") [flags 0x3] ) (expr_list:REG_ARGS_SIZE (const_int 0 [0]) (expr_list:REG_NORETURN (const_int 0 [0]) (expr_list:REG_EH_REGION (const_int 0 [0]) (nil))) (expr_list (use (reg:QI 0 ax)) (expr_list:DI (use (reg:DI 5 di)) (nil (note 12 20 21 ("x6") NOTE_INSN_DELETED_LABEL 5) (barrier 21 12 22) Is this valid? I assume NOTE_INSN_DELETED can appear in that position as well? If so, shouldn't begin_move_insn use next_nonnote_insn rather than plain NEXT_INSN to find either the barrier or the label of the next bb?