From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21339 invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2015 10:59:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21329 invoked by uid 89); 23 Jul 2015 10:59:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ig0-f171.google.com Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com (HELO mail-ig0-f171.google.com) (209.85.213.171) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:59:01 +0000 Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so10849167igb.0 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 03:58:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.27.39 with SMTP id q7mr14440729igg.73.1437649139055; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 03:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.142.7 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 03:58:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <551A2C7C.8060005@redhat.com> <5522AF73.5000706@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PR64164] drop copyrename, integrate into expand From: Richard Biener To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Jeff Law , GCC Patches , Christophe Lyon , David Edelsohn , Eric Botcazou Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg01922.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jul 21, 2015, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> + if (cfun->gimple_df) > >> If the cfun->gimple_df check is to decide whether this is a call or a function >> then no, this can't work reliably. What is this test for else? > > It turns out it's not call or function, as I thought at first, but > gimplifying or expanding the function. split_complex_args is not used > for calls. So the above might actually work (minus the misleading > comments I wrote), and I think it's cleaner than adding a bool > expanding_p arg to split_complex_args and > assign_parms_augmented_arg_list, called from gimplify_parameters (during > gimplification of a function) and assign_parms (during its expansion). > Do you agree, or would you prefer the explicit argument? Hmm, ok. Does using if (currently_expanding_to_rtl) work? I think it's slightly more descriptive. Ok with that change. Thanks, Richard. > -- > Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ > You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi > Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member > Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer