This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: PR19578: noreturn vs. function pointer propagation part 2

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
To: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:36:44 -0500
Subject: Re: PR19578: noreturn vs. function pointer propagation part 2
Organization: Red Hat Canada
References: <87wtu5dbdb.fsf@redhat.com> <41F27889.1050102@redhat.com> <87y8efkeq6.fsf_-_@redhat.com> <41F82EA6.60902@redhat.com> <87oef637yj.fsf@firetop.home> <41FF8F11.7040007@redhat.com> <wvnfz0fjqx6.fsf@talisman.cambridge.redhat.com>

Richard Sandiford wrote:

Why is it necessary to initialise modified_noreturn_calls?  The VEC code
treats NULLs as empty vectors, so there doesn't seem to be any need to
initialise it explicitly.

Sorry. I meant setting it to NULL in both places, I had forgotten about VEC's safe-push semantics. Partly old habit and also, I'm not sure we can assume that global variables are always zeroed out by the environment.

I suppose setting it to null in delete_tree_ssa is just a way of making
sure that, if one pathological function has lots of noreturn calls,
the vector doesn't remain needlessly big for other functions.
Is that right?

Right.

Diego.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PR19578: noreturn vs. function pointer propagation part 2
  - From: Andrew Pinski

References:
- Re: PR19578: noreturn vs. function pointer propagation part 2
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: PR19578: noreturn vs. function pointer propagation part 2
  - From: Richard Sandiford

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]