This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] Fix for PR58201
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, jason at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:45:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Fix for PR58201
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20130904160409 dot GF20687 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <52276493 dot 9070706 at codesourcery dot com> <20130904170918 dot GI20687 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
Jan Hubicka <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 09/04/2013 06:04 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > this is third fallout of my change to remove
>DECL_ARGUMENTS/DECL_RESULT for functions w/o
>> > bodies I did not really anticipate.
>> > I would like to basically ask if it seems to make sense to go this
>> > try to get rid of those declarations.
>> I'm currently working on a new target, ptx, which uses a
>> pseudo-assembler where functions (even extern ones) need to be
>> with their arguments and return types. With my current code I have to
>> look at DECL_ARGUMENTS fairly late in the compilation. I'm not quite
>> sure yet whether the change to delete them will break the backend.
>How do you support K&R functions here? My basic idea was that
>should give enough information about external function calling
>anyone will ever need. I would hope that this will be sufficient for
>use, too, despite the fact you no longer have parameter names at hand
>and you also lose info about external inline K&R-style delcared
>that has been optimized out.
>If not that indeed, you will not see DECL_ARGUMENTS for external
>anytime after cgraph_remove_unreachable_functions is called.
In fact it has to work because of indirect calls and how we now handle gimple call abi via gimple_call_fntype.