This is the mail archive of the 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: Unnecessary call to mark_temp_addr_taken in calls.c (related to pr25505)?

On 8/22/06, Josh Conner <> wrote:
Richard Kenner wrote:

>> I did investigate the case you described, where two function parameters
>> are calls to the same function returning a structure.  The front-end
>> generates temporaries to handle this, and so the middle-end-generated
>> temporaries are still restricted to a lifetime of a single statement.

> Neverthless, it may be that gimplification renders this OBE.  If so,
> then I suspect a that *a lot* of the temporary lifetime tracking code is
> also no longer needed.  But I wouldn't want to jump to any of these
> conclusions too quickly: this stuff is very complex.

OK, thanks.  If you have any suggestions on other approaches to
verifying this, I'd certainly appreciate it.

Other than testing on more targets, no. Does it fix PR25505? In this case it would be a fix for a regression and maybe rth can have a look at the patch as he should know this area equally well?


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