On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 11:25:21AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Since all implementations of this hook will have to do the same, I think > > it is better if you leave this test at the (only two) callers. The hook > > doesn't need an argument then, and maybe is better named something like > > setjmp_is_normal_call? (The original code did not test CALL_P btw). > > Seconded, but I'd be even more explicit in the naming of the hook, for > example > setjmp_preserves_nonvolatile_registers or somesuch. (And I don't think that > setjmp can be considered a normal call in any case since it returns twice).
Right... I meant setjmp has the normal calling convention, the normal call ABI. It doesn't really matter to have a longer name here, it is only used twice (and that code can be factored out to some helper function, even). Segher
