> On 09/04/2013 10:49 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > >On 09/04/2013 06:04 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > >>this is third fallout of my change to remove DECL_ARGUMENTS/DECL_RESULT for > >>functions w/o > >>bodies I did not really anticipate. > >[...] > >>I would like to basically ask if it seems to make sense to go this route and > >>try to get rid of those declarations. > > > >I'm currently working on a new target, ptx, which uses a > >pseudo-assembler where functions (even extern ones) need to be declared > >with their arguments and return types. With my current code I have to > >look at DECL_ARGUMENTS fairly late in the compilation. I'm not quite > >sure yet whether the change to delete them will break the backend. > IIRC the PA had similar requirements as well -- in > ASM_DECLARE_FUNCTION_NAME we have to peek at DECL_ARGUMENTS so we > can pass to the assembler & linker which registers hold arguments.
This use should be safe, too. ASM_DECLARE_FUNCTION_NAME is called on function whose body is being output and there we do have DECL_ARGUMENTS (as we consider them part of the body) Honza
