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: [patch] 2 patches for PR tree-optimization/34648

From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
To: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Andrew MacLeod" <amacleod at redhat dot com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:55:35 +0100
Subject: Re: [patch] 2 patches for PR tree-optimization/34648
References: <478F6288.1010009@redhat.com> <478F698E.5070506@redhat.com> <84fc9c000801170651v198b5f7dh9ee6df34ba4902b@mail.gmail.com>

> Right.  This is also what doc/extend.texi says.  It explicitly mentiones
> that such calls are subject of common subexpression elimination (which
> would also be not possible if the functions could throw).

Why?  I think it's a matter of convention.  Unless I'm mistaken, pure 
functions in Ada can throw and can be CSE'd.

> I think both patches are ok, but if anyone is concerned we can leave the
> changing of tree_could_throw_p to stage1.

Yes, I don't think now is the right time to make such a non-trivial change.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] 2 patches for PR tree-optimization/34648
  - From: Richard Guenther

References:
- [patch] 2 patches for PR tree-optimization/34648
  - From: Andrew MacLeod
- Re: [patch] 2 patches for PR tree-optimization/34648
  - From: Andrew MacLeod
- Re: [patch] 2 patches for PR tree-optimization/34648
  - From: Richard Guenther

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