On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > On 02/10/2015 05:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 04:56:40PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: >>> >>> On 02/10/2015 01:50 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello. >>>>> >>>>> Following patch is fix for PR ipa/64813. The patch was tested on a >>>>> darwin >>>>> target >>>>> by Dominique. >>>>> >>>>> Ready for trunk? >>>> >>>> >>>> - if (!(gimple_call_flags (call) & ECF_NORETURN)) >>>> + if (!alias_is_noreturn) >>>> >>>> that was technically unnecessary, right? The call flags properly >>>> return ECF_NORETURN already? >>>> >>>> Ok if that is the case. >>> >>> >>> Hi. >>> >>> You are right, !(gimple_call_flags (call) & ECF_NORETURN) returns a >>> correct value. >>> Motivation for replacement is not to repeat the same condition, I hope >>> the value >>> of alias_is_noreturn is correct in all uses. >> >> >> And gimple_call_flags (call) & ECF_NORETURN doesn't? I mean, if you could >> initialize alias_is_noreturn to that, it would be nicer. >> >> Jakub >> > > Hello. > > There are actually 3 places I need to guard if a function non-return. > First place is responsible for result type creation: > > /* Build call to the function being thunked. */ > if (!VOID_TYPE_P (restype) && !alias_is_noreturn) > > Where I can create guard just based on TREE_THIS_VOLATILE of the called > function. > Once the new gimple call is created I can use: > > (gimple_call_flags (call) & ECF_NORETURN > > So that's the reason I create one bool value (alias_is_noreturn) and the > very > beginning of expand_thunk method. Dost it make sense?
Yes, and I think your patch is ok. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > Martin
