2013/11/19 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>:
> On 11/18/13 12:16, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> With current recursion elimination we will have:
>>
>> test (int *param1)
>> {
>> <bb1>:
>>
>> <bb2>:
>> _7 = PHI<param1(D) (bb1), _6 (bb2)>
>> bounds2 = __builtin_arg_bounds (_7) -- WRONG
>
> I wouldn't say it's wrong. It's conservatively correct if properly
> implemented. Why precisely do you consider this wrong? If your code can't
> handle it, it really should be fixed.
It is wrong because __builtin_arg_bounds is used to get bounds of
input parameter and PHI node here is not an input parameter. Correctl
handling of __builtin_arg_bounds in this 'wrong' example requires
adding it a PHI node semantics based on it's arg. For me it seems
more complex then generating a regular PHI node for bounds and makes
GIMPLE less readable.
Ilya
>
> Jeff
>
>
