This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: cfun and current_function_decl

From: "Paulo J. Matos" <pocmatos at gmail dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:05:20 +0000
Subject: Re: cfun and current_function_decl
References: <11b141711001180224l48ac6a1bxa3741e153d0bf374@mail.gmail.com> <84fc9c001001180230ld5a00e1j58898a6590e71d9@mail.gmail.com> <11b141711001180440je5458fflab8b218db43067c2@mail.gmail.com> <84fc9c001001180458t5f203b71jcb8e2094fc57617f@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes. ÂDuring expansion we destroy the trees.
>

Is there a way to avoid tree destruction? Maybe through a flag?
If not, what I need is in the hook, to know if the caller, calls any
other functions besides the one we are evaluating the sibcall to. This
would be easy with the tree as we would only need to walk the tree and
find CALL_EXPR different from the one we get in the argument for the
hook. Without the tree, I don't even know if this is possible since we
don't have the complete RTL yet, right? Do you have any suggestion?

> Richard.
>

-- 
Paulo Jorge Matos - pocmatos at gmail.com
http://www.pmatos.net

Follow-Ups:
- Re: cfun and current_function_decl
  - From: Richard Guenther

References:
- cfun and current_function_decl
  - From: Paulo J. Matos
- Re: cfun and current_function_decl
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: cfun and current_function_decl
  - From: Paulo J. Matos
- Re: cfun and current_function_decl
  - From: Richard Guenther

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