Alexander Monakov wrote:
> As I understand, we need to ensure that get_insns call retrieves the topmost
> sequence corresponding to the function body, not any current subsequence that
> could have been started via start_sequence. Therefore the 'prolog or epilog'
> part is a bit misleading, we could be in a subsequence for other reasons, and
> we need to reject those as well. So, ...
It's most likely that if this assert triggers, it is from a prolog or epilog
sequence.
> ... can the comment please be reworded to match the code, if it's necessary to
> have a comment here at all? E.g. "Ensure we walk the entire function body
> after
> the following get_insns call".
I've changed to to "Ensure we walk the entire function body."
Wilco
2017-05-11 Wilco Dijkstra <wdijk...@arm.com>
* final.c (leaf_function_p): Check we are not in a sequence.
--
diff --git a/gcc/final.c b/gcc/final.c
index
820162b2d28d734901375017cf0c7a3095e8903e..e61b78b0a915df748fcf3d73cd46db855cf7a1c6
100644
--- a/gcc/final.c
+++ b/gcc/final.c
@@ -4309,6 +4309,9 @@ leaf_function_p (void)
{
rtx_insn *insn;
+ /* Ensure we walk the entire function body. */
+ gcc_assert (!in_sequence_p ());
+
/* Some back-ends (e.g. s390) want leaf functions to stay leaf
functions even if they call mcount. */
if (crtl->profile && !targetm.keep_leaf_when_profiled ())
