Re: [PATCH] Remove uninitialized reads of is_leaf

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 11/29/2016 12:54 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 11/29/2016 11:39 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > > I forgot to ask, would it be reasonable to add an assert to check we're not in
> > > a sequence in leaf_function_p? I guess this will trigger on several targets
> > > (leaf_function_p is used in several backends) but it's a real bug if
> > > crtl->is_leaf is true.
> > Can it wait for the next stage1?  I'd hate to start tripping the assert
> > all over the place at this point in the release cycle.
>
> Yes I don't think it is urgent as the incorrect value returned would likely make a leaf
> function save/restore the return address unnecessarily. It starts to generate incorrect
> code on ARM if you remove the if (reload_completed) test in arm_get_frame_offsets
> (which should just be an optimization to avoid recomputing the frame layout repeatedly,
> not essential for correctness).
Feel free to go forward with this now on the trunk.  If there's fallout 
it'll need to be fixed obviously, but it won't affect the upcoming gcc-7 
release.

jeff