I'm certain there are better ways; can you be more specific though? Or are you just talking about defining a sibcall_epilogue pattern?
On Jul 8, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Alan Lehotsky <qsm...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> When a peephole is recognized, the first insn in the group is replaced by a >> pseudo insn that contains all the referenced operands in the TEMPLATE and >> sets an INSN_CODE to indicate which peephole matched. >> >> This is all well and good, except that if the peephole involves a CALL_INSN, >> final_scan_insn() will invoke call_from_call_insn() to try and get the call >> RTL. But if the peephole is in fact some kind of a tail call, we no longer >> have a call expression to be found and end up asserting in >> call_from_call_insn(). > > > Simple answer don't use peephole optimization to perform the tail call > optimization. There are better ways of performing that optimization. > > Thanks, > Andrew
