Richard Biener
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: An problematic interaction between a call created by
gimple_build_call and inlining
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 02 2020, Gary Oblock wrote:
> Martin,
>
> What about immediate dominators?
I'm afraid I don't understand your question, what
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 3:40 PM
> To: Gary Oblock ; Richard Biener
>
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: An problematic interaction between a call created by
> gimple_build_call and inlining
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL NOTICE: This email originated from an external sen
Martin,
What about immediate dominators?
Thanks,
Gary
From: Martin Jambor
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 3:40 PM
To: Gary Oblock ; Richard Biener
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: An problematic interaction between a call created by
gimple_build_call and
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 01 2020, Gary Oblock via Gcc wrote:
> Thank you Richard.
>
> I feel a bit dumb because I'm well aware of the GCC philosophy to have
> any new code produced update the state. Of course I didn't know the
> commands to do this for the call graph (which I really appreciate you giving.
An problematic interaction between a call created by
gimple_build_call and inlining
[EXTERNAL EMAIL NOTICE: This email originated from an external sender. Please
be mindful of safe email handling and proprietary information protection
practices.]
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 7:49 AM Gary Oblock via Gcc
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 7:49 AM Gary Oblock via Gcc wrote:
>
> I'm trying to generate calls to "free" on the fly at ipa time.
>
> I've tried several things (given below) but they both fail
> in expand_call_inline in tree-inline.c on this gcc_checking_assert:
>
> cg_edge = id->dst_node->get_edge (
I'm trying to generate calls to "free" on the fly at ipa time.
I've tried several things (given below) but they both fail
in expand_call_inline in tree-inline.c on this gcc_checking_assert:
cg_edge = id->dst_node->get_edge (stmt);
gcc_checking_assert (cg_edge);
Now, I've tried using the buil
