On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > How would it? The shrink-wrapping algorithms do not much care how you > > write your control flow. The only things I can think of are drastic > > things like removing some dead code, or converting a switch to a direct > > jump, but those had better be done for the immediately preceding passes > > already (register allocation). > > But the compiler didn't wait until after shrink-wrapping to emit multiple > epilogues and can still do that w/o shrink-wrapping.
It will only ever generate a single epilogue (unless you also count sibcall epilogues), and that is done after shrink-wrapping. Or you mean something else and I just don't see it. > > I can put back a cleanup_cfg (0) in front if that seems less tricky > > (or just safer)? > > I think you need to evaluate the effects of the change on a set of sources. Yeah I'll do that, thanks for the idea. Segher
