On Jul 21, 2015, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Jul 16, 2015, Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com> wrote: >> + /* If we are assigning parameters for a function, rather >> + than for a call, propagate the RTL of the complex parm to >> + the split declarations, and set their contexts so that >> + maybe_reset_rtl_for_parm can recognize them and refrain >> + from resetting their RTL. */ >> + if (cfun->gimple_df)
> If the cfun->gimple_df check is to decide whether this is a call or a function > then no, this can't work reliably. What is this test for else? That was the reason: call or function. > You pass another argument to split_complex_arg, so why not pass in a bool > on whether we split it for this or the other case? There's only one call to split_complex_args. I'll try to figure out where the paths converge and see if it's reasonable to pass an argument all the way to tell the two cases apart. Thanks for the suggestion, -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer
