Re: [PATCH] RIP lang_hooks.tree_inlining.convert_parm_for_inlining

[Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > 
> > > 	* gimplify.c (gimplify_call_expr): Verify the call expression
> > > 	arguments match the called function type signature.  Otherwise
> > > 	mark the call expression to be not considered for inlining
> > > 	using TREE_STATIC flag.
> > > 	* ipa-inline.c (cgraph_mark_inline): Honor TREE_STATIC on the
> > > 	edges call expression.
> > 
> > If this is a new use of TREE_STATIC, could you define a new checking macro 
> > (CALL_CANNOT_INLINE_P or similar) which expands to TREE_STATIC after 
> > checking the argument is a CALL_EXPR, rather than using TREE_STATIC 
> > directly, and update the comments in tree.h listing the uses of 
> > static_flag?
> 
> Sure.

Btw, I noticed we now fail to warn for gcc.dg/warn-1.c and
gcc.dg/assign-warn-3.c.  Both are old-style function declarations
where the frontend doesn't warn, but we only warned if we inlined
the functions because of the langhook.  I don't consider this
a problem.  [We also mark them not for inlining because the frontend
doesn't set TYPE_ARG_TYPES correctly, only DECL_ARGUMENTS are filled.
If this is a problem I have to add another scanning loop variant to
gimplify.c]

Shall I xfail the testcases or simply remove them?

Thanks,
Richard.