On Sun, 8 Jul 2012, Alan Lehotsky wrote: > I'm certain there are better ways; can you be more specific though? > > Or are you just talking about defining a sibcall_epilogue pattern?
I'm not Andrew but I think obviously enough "yes". Better to say, perhaps even document, that text peepholes are deprecated, and "fixing" them to work with calls (or jumps) just won't happen. (Except through curing-headache-by-beheading -- removing them completely). > > 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 >
