David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Eventually we should manually mark certain function DECLs as > > not-returning-null instead of my kludgy test for this one case. I don't > > know if/when I can get to that. Perhaps somebody else can take it from > > here. > > Looks like all the bits in struct tree_common are used up. > > Q: Would it make sense to add a flag to struct tree_decl_common to > indicate !zero, set it using an attribute, (and automatically in the > java front-end for the cases above), and then test for it in > tree-vrp.c similar to below?
This should be done using an attribute, yes. If this is going to be tested frequently enough, it would make sense to add a bit to struct tree_function_decl (I don't see any reason to put it in struct tree_decl-common) (there is currently room for one more bit in tree_function_decl on a machine which requires 16-bit alignment, or 17 more bits on a machine which requires 32-bit alignment). Note that it is also possible to simply store the attribute on DECL_ATTRIBUTES and look it up using lookup_attribute. Ian
