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: Nested libcalls (was: Re: RFC: SMS problem with emit_copy_of_insn_after copying REG_NOTEs)

> On Sunday 31 December 2006 00:59, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > Also I should mention, this also fixes a possible bug with libcalls that
> > > are embedded in one another.  Before we were just assuming if we have a
> > > REG_RETVAL, then the previous REG_LIBCALL would be the start of the
> > > libcall but that would be incorrect with embedded libcalls.
> >
> > We should not have nested libcalls at all.  One level of libcalls is
> > painful enough and we take care to not do this.
> It's unclear whether we can have nested libcalls or not.  We expect them
> in some places (especially, see libcall_stack in gcse.c:local_cprop_pass)
> but are bound to fail miserably in others.
> This is something I've been wondering for a while.  Maybe someone can
> give a definitive answer: Can libcalls be nested, or not?

My understanding is that libcall should not be nested and there is code
to avoid nesting in emit_libcall_block. I believe this was also outcome
of some disucssions with Rth while back. Historically some code was
written to support nested libcalls but I believe it was never useful but
it got propagated to new code.

If we care, we probably could tweek verify_flow_info to verify that
libcalls are unnested and don't span BB boundary, but I have too many
other verifier related plans right now to be able to promise to get into
this soon.

> Gr.
> Steven

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