On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com> wrote:
>> I've looked at the C++ testcase
>>
>> int foo (int &x)
>> {
>> try {
>> return x;
>> }
>> catch (...)
>> {
>> return 0;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> which exhibits exactly the behavior you quote - return x is considered
>> throwing an exception. The C++ FE doesn't arrange for TREE_THIS_NOTRAP to
>> be set here (maybe due to this issue you quote?).
>
> I presume that you compiled with -fnon-call-exceptions? Otherwise, I don't
> see how something that isn't a call can throw an exception in C++, it should
> be seen at most as possibly trapping, which is less blocking.
Yes, with -fnon-call-exceptions.
>> Other than that the patch looks reasonable (I suppose you need
>> is_parameter_of only because as we recursively handle the trees
>> PARM_DECLs from the destination could already have leaked into
>> the tree we recurse into?)
>
> Do you mean that the test on DECL_CONTEXT is superfluous? Possibly indeed,
> but with nested functions you can have PARM_DECLs of different origins in a
> given function body, although this may be irrelevant for tree-inline.c.
Yeah, I thought testing for a PARM_DECL should be sufficient? For
nested functions
references to outer parms should have been lowered via the static
chain at the point
tree-inline.c sees them.
So, if you agree that the DECL_CONTEXT test is superfluous the patch is ok
with the is_parameter_of function removed.
Thanks,
Richard.
> --
> Eric Botcazou
