Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

[Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandiford@linaro.org> wrote:
> Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> writes:
>> Stores are better than builtin functions here, so as to not artificially
>> take addresses of the decls in question.
>
> For the record, you wouldn't need to take the address if you had an
> internal function (internal-fn.def) of the form:
>
>    MEM_REF [<thing to clobber>] = internal_fn_that_returns_unknown_data ();
>
> This was one of the reasons for adding internal functions, and we use
> a similar technique for the interleaved load/stores.
>
> Not an argument in favour of using calls.  There are probably other
> reasons to prefer your representation.  It just seemed that, whatever
> the arguments against using calls are, taking the address doesn't
> need to be one of them.

True at least since we have internal functions ;)  Still an aggregate
assignment looks less disturbing to random optimizers than a call.

Richard.