promoted_input_arg

[Sandra Loosemore]

Nigel sent us the attached new version of this patch -- the original 3.4 
version of the patch was too bit-rotten to be usable.  He said he hadn't 
tested this one yet, but I think the patch and test case combined at 
least are adequate to explain what optimization it is they want to happen.

I haven't dug around to familiarize myself with the details of this code 
yet, but my concerns over correctness are that (a) all the language 
front ends do in fact provide the guarantee that the arguments are 
compatible and (b) this won't screw up ABI issues, DWARF information, 
etc.  And, from an engineering perspective, is this the right place in 
the compiler to be inserting an interprocedural optimization?

-Sandra



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: function.c.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2166 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20070830/35bb5381/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: test-case
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20070830/35bb5381/attachment.ksh>