Re: tree inline bug and fix

[Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>]

Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-11/msg00199.html

Hi Alexey,

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Alexey Starovoytov wrote:
> I believe there is a bug in the function "inline_forbidden_p"
> in the file "c-objc-common.c".
> It is possible that function declaration 't' has a non-zero
> DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (t) field and 't' is not a BUILT_IN function.
> (In other words t->decl.u1.f != 0 and t->decl.built_in_class == 0)

The patch itself is OK.  I see you already have a copyright assignment
on file.  However, you must also post a proposed ChangeLog entry with
patch submissions.  This is even more important if you don't yet have
CVS write access and someone else will need to commit it for you.  You
also need to list the target triples you tested on, and whether there
were any changes in testsuite results.

Please could you post an updated patch with all the required information
and I'll approve it/apply it for you.  Don't forget to mention
"PR optimization/12953" in the new ChangeLog entry.

Also feel free to delete the "#if 0" section touched by your change.
Its reasonable to call builtin_return_address in an inlined function,
but the result will/should be the return address of the function its
inlined into.  Anyone aware of this GCC builtin should also be aware of
GCC's noinline attribute, if their use of the return address is unsafe
when inlining.

Many thanks.

Roger
--