On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 12:17 AM Robert Dubner wrote:
>
> The COBOL compiler has this routine:
>
> void
> gg_exit(tree exit_code)
> {
> tree the_call =
> build_call_expr_loc(location_from_lineno(),
> builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT),
>
To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: GCC Mailing List
> Subject: Re: COBOL: Call to builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT), is
> optimized away.
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 3:35 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 3:06 PM Robert Dubner wrote:
> > >
>
t reading from a unsigned char
declaration. Since the
declaration __gg__data_return_code is just 1 byte the 2-byte store
cannot possibly alias it.
Richard.
> Richard.
>
> >
> > > -----Original Message-
> > > From: Richard Biener
> > > Sent: Friday, April 4, 2
to implement the LANG_HOOKS_POST_OPTIONS hook and
do
flag_strict_aliasing = 0;
therein.
Richard.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 03:02
> > To: Robert Dubner
> > Cc: GCC Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: COBOL:
obert Dubner
> Cc: GCC Mailing List
> Subject: Re: COBOL: Call to builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT), is
> optimized away.
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 12:17 AM Robert Dubner wrote:
> >
> > The COBOL compiler has this routine:
> >
> > void
>
; To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: GCC Mailing List
> Subject: Re: COBOL: Call to builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT), is
> optimized away.
>
>
> Nah, I see ECF_TM_PURE despite the name seems to be doing something very
> different than ECF_CONST and ECF_PURE:
>
> if (fl
Nah, I see ECF_TM_PURE despite the name seems to be doing something very
different than ECF_CONST and ECF_PURE:
if (flags & ECF_PURE)
DECL_PURE_P (decl) = 1;
...
if ((flags & ECF_TM_PURE) && flag_tm)
apply_tm_attr (decl, get_identifier ("transaction_pure"));
Still, you may try to
Perhaps it is because you are using ECF_TM_PURE when defining the
built-in in cobol1.cc:
#define ATTR_TMPURE_NORETURN_NOTHROW_LEAF_COLD_LIST
(ECF_TM_PURE|ECF_NORETURN|ECF_NOTHROW|ECF_LEAF|ECF_COLD)
[...]
gfc_define_builtin ("__builtin_exit", ftype, BUILT_IN_EXIT,
"exit", ATTR_T
m?
Thanks.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gcc On Behalf Of
Robert
> Dubner
> Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2025 18:19
> To: GCC Mailing List
> Subject: RE: COBOL: Call to builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT), is
> optimized away.
>
> I stated that poorly. After I gene
I stated that poorly. After I generate the GENERIC, and I hand the tree
over to the middle end, it is the call to BUILT_IN_EXIT that seems to be
disappearing.
Everything I describe here is occurring with a -O0 build of GCC and
GCOBOL.
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Dubner
> Sent: T
10 matches
Mail list logo
