On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 09:58:16AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > --- gcc/c-family/c-common.c.jj 2020-03-21 18:29:58.989160193 +0100
> > +++ gcc/c-family/c-common.c 2020-04-25 10:13:14.158722031 +0200
> > @@ -7402,9 +7402,11 @@ resolve_overloaded_builtin (location_t l
> > enum built_in_function fncode
> > = speculation_safe_value_resolve_call (function, params);;
> > + if (fncode == BUILT_IN_NONE)
> > + return error_mark_node;
> > +
> > first_param = (*params)[0];
> > - if (fncode == BUILT_IN_NONE
> > - || !speculation_safe_value_resolve_params (loc, function, params))
> > + if (!speculation_safe_value_resolve_params (loc, function, params))
> > return error_mark_node;
>
> first_param isn't used in that conditional, can't you just move its
> assinment afterwards?
I think I can't, because speculation_safe_value_resolve_params
can modify the (*params)[0] and if there wasn't a reason to remember
(*params)[0] before the call, why would the patch author add first_param
var at all when it could just use (*params)[0]; it does use (*params)[1]...
So my assumption is that where first_param is used, the code wants the
value before promotions/conversions.
Jakub
