This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [IFUNC}: Properly handle indirect function return
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 12:41:38 -0700
- Subject: Re: [IFUNC}: Properly handle indirect function return
- References: <20090706193618.GA8240@lucon.org>
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM, H.J. Lu<hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> + Â Âcase GIMPLE_RETURN:
> + Â Â Âif (DECL_IS_IFUNC (current_function_decl))
> + Â Â Â {
> + Â Â Â Â if (dump_file)
> + Â Â Â Â Â fprintf (dump_file, " Â ÂIndirect function is not const/pure");
> + Â Â Â Â local->pure_const_state = IPA_NEITHER;
> + Â Â Â }
> + Â Â Âbreak;
This seems like the incorrect place to put this check as it does not
depend on the return statement. It seems like it is better if it is
put analyze_function and then skip the walk of the IR.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski