Using MEM_EXPR inside a call expression

[Adam Nemet]

Richard Henderson writes:
> On 08/28/2009 12:38 AM, Adam Nemet wrote:
> > ... To assist the linker we need to annotate the indirect call
> > with the function symbol.
> >
> > Since the call is expanded early...
> 
> Having experimented with this on Alpha a few years back,
> the only thing I can suggest is to not expand them early.
> 
> I use a combination of peep2's and normal splitters to
> determine if the post-call GP reload is needed, and to
> expand the call itself.

I see.  So I guess you're saying that there is little chance to optimize the
loop I had in my previous email ;(.

Now suppose we split late, shouldn't we still assume that data-flow can change
later.  IOW, wouldn't we be required to use the literal/lituse counting that
alpha does?

If yes then I guess it's still better to use MEM_EXPR.  MEM_EXPR also has the
benefit that it does not deem indirect calls as different when cross-jumping
compares the insns.  I don't know how important this is though.

Adam