http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58165
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>The guilty revision is:
No that just exposed the bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58165
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58165
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58165
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
I firstly did something like that:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-call-cdce.c b/gcc/tree-call-cdce.c
index 9b6186e..5862ebf 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-call-cdce.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-call-cdce.c
@@ -771,6 +771,9 @@ shrink_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58165
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Alexander Ivchenko from comment #4)
> I firstly did something like that:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-call-cdce.c b/gcc/tree-call-cdce.c
> index 9b6186e..5862ebf 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-call-cdce.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58165
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30661|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58165
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
> Well, that wouldn't be sufficient, you'd need to also remove the EH edges
> from the other bb. But not splitting the block means you don't have to
> bother with that.
Well, that's true. We could do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58165
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
