On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> I wonder if it wouldn't be better to fold the target builtins only later >> on >> (e.g. guard the folding with cfun && gimple_in_ssa_p (cfun) (or if we have >> any predicate that is set starting with gimplification or so)). >> Having all the FEs have to deal with myriads of weird tree codes etc. >> isn't >> IMHO desirable. > > > Wouldn't that prevent from using those builtins in constant expressions? > That seems undesirable. Maybe an alternative could be to push some of the > functionality from potential_constant_expression_1 to the middle-end?
True, but is that bad? If we want to delay such folding then please don't do it with a magic flag but instead do the folding only via fold_stmt - that is, add a new target hook that folds a gimple call. I bet we have only a very limited set of target call foldings, so transitioning them all to fold gimple calls would be easy. Richard. > -- > Marc Glisse
