problems in interaction between peephole on CALL_INSN and final_scan_insn

[Alan Lehotsky]

I'm certain there are better ways; can you be more specific though?

Or are you just talking about defining a sibcall_epilogue pattern?

On Jul 8, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Alan Lehotsky <qsmgmt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> When a peephole is recognized, the first insn in the group is replaced by a pseudo insn that contains all the referenced operands in the TEMPLATE and sets an INSN_CODE to indicate which peephole matched.
>> 
>> This is all well and good, except that if the peephole involves a CALL_INSN, final_scan_insn() will invoke call_from_call_insn() to try and get the call RTL.  But if the peephole is in fact some kind of a tail call, we no longer have a call expression to be found and end up asserting in call_from_call_insn().
> 
> 
> Simple answer don't use peephole optimization to perform the tail call
> optimization.  There are better ways of performing that optimization.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andrew