public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/10837] noreturn attribute causes no sibling calling optimization
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:40:52 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-10837-4-972T48H9GT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-10837-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837

--- Comment #18 from Lukas Grätz <lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de> ---
On another thought: I think something like -fignore-backtrace could be a
reasonable optimization flag (enabled by default for -O4). By ignoring the
backtrace we could do other optimizations on size and speed, like in this
ticket and duplicates.

There are use cases for that, see some of the duplicate tickets. For example in
PR56165, they didn't want to support any debugging at all. And even if you want
debugging, you might want to disregard backtraces and use a more sophisticated
debugging device. This is independent from attribute musttail, with
-fignore-backtrace we would leave GCC more freedom to do optimization.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-02-14 11:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <bug-10837-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-01-31 21:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-03  2:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-10  0:17 ` luto at mit dot edu
2013-08-14 15:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-08-23 13:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-08-25 11:26 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2023-10-12 14:28 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-11 19:51 ` goon.pri.low at gmail dot com
2024-02-12  2:39 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-12  4:38 ` lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de
2024-02-14 11:40 ` lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de [this message]
2024-02-25 11:48 ` pskocik at gmail dot com
2024-02-26 15:17 ` lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de
     [not found] <bug-10837-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2007-08-16 10:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-08-28 19:07 ` kauer at os dot inf dot tu-dresden dot de
2007-08-28 19:27 ` kauer at os dot inf dot tu-dresden dot de
2007-12-26  9:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-10837-4-972T48H9GT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).