This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Unnecessary call to mark_temp_addr_taken in calls.c (related to pr25505)?
- From: "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: "Richard Kenner" <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: jconner at apple dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:41:52 +0200
- Subject: Re: Unnecessary call to mark_temp_addr_taken in calls.c (related to pr25505)?
- References: <44EA29D7.email@example.com> <10608212253.AA25266@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On 8/22/06, Richard Kenner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> So, my question is: is it really necessary to mark this location as
> having its address taken? Yes, the address of the slot is passed to a
> function, however I can't imagine any instances where the function
> retaining that address after the call would be valid.
Your tracing below confirms my recollection that I was the one who added that
code. Unfortunately, it came in as a merge from another tree, so it's going
to be hard to do the archeology to figure out what it was added for, but the
history certainly suggests to me that there *was* some test case when it did
have a longer life and that's why it was added.
And you did not add that test case, why? Now there is a possible fix
for a pretty ugly regression, and we can only *guess* why something is
done the way it is???