On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >> >> Yeah, I suppose we'd need to either build a new function type for each >> variadic call >> then or somehow represent 'fntype' differently (note that function >> attributes also >> need to be preserved). > > Why we can't keep fntype as it is, but simply add a new set of parameters to > call stmt > that lists their types? We can then feed those types to expand_call (since > we still go > back to generic here I suppose we will just re-insert those VCEs in > expand-cfg.c)
That would be quite expensive though ... (the extra list of parameters). > Honza
