------- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-06 16:48 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > By the same argument, shouldn't we drop the assignment early, and make it a > non-assigning call?
Sure - fixing this during gimplification would be fine with me. I'm not sure it cannot happen via later folding an indirect call to a call that we only then figure is noreturn (maybe there is folding already for that case - you might want to double-check). > The assignment is also supposed to occur after the call, > although it's not denoted in a separate statement, but SSA analysis doesn't > complain about it. Shouldn't it? Well, the assignment in a call stmt is after the call. So we just define it to be correct (I can't see of a better way encoding it - see also the issues with exceptions). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42363
