On Wed, 6 Apr 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 09:41:44AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > But it seems like the magic incantation to detect “real” built-in > > function calls is getting longer and longer. Can we not abstract this > > in a single place rather than have to repeat the same long sequence in > > multiple places? > > I've already committed it, so it can be only dealt with an incremental > patch. > One possibility is to do it inside of > gimple_builtin_call_types_compatible_p, after the assert do that: > if (DECL_BUILT_IN_CLASS (fndecl) == BUILT_IN_NORMAL) > if (tree decl = builtin_decl_explicit (DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (fndecl))) > fndecl = decl; > but we then lose the theoretical possibility of comparing against the > actual user declaration. Though I guess in the > gimple-fold.cc > gimple-low.cc > gimple-match-head.cc > calls to that function we also want this rather than what they do currently.
Yes, I think it would be clearer to pass a BUILT_IN_* code to gimple_builtin_call_types_compatible_p and no decl and simply return false if we cannot get out hands at the "proper" decl from builtin_decl_explicit ... Richard.
