>> I can certainly move this to expand_call_stmt() if you prefer.  Do you have
>> an objection to the RTL walk?  This isn't my code, but I'm open to
>> suggestions on an alternative to implement.
>
> It just catched my eye...  moving it to expand_call_stmt would be nice
> indeed, but I was suggesting to add that note where we produce the
> CALL rtx, not sure if that's reasonably straight-forward (I suppose there
> was a reason to go with the hack above ...).

Sure.

OK pending tests?