[PATCH][RFC] Fix PR54824, deal with BBs with no successor

[Steven Bosscher]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
>> But, really, why inline noreturn functions at all?
>
> That's a good question.  The question then is, why not?

Because noreturn functions are usually on error paths. To inline a
called noreturn function is to drag overhead into the caller,
potentially resulting in poorer icache behavior, increased code size,
...

But I suppose inlining things like wrappers around exit() and abort()
should be a win. Maybe a noreturn function should get a size/time
penalty to avoid inlining relatively large noreturn functions.

> And the question still stands: is a BB without successor ok?

Yes, this is OK.

Ciao!
Steven