From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB9003857438 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2023 12:47:09 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org EB9003857438 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1676292429; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=KbBWTQ1OkyGN7ANFIEaRyvPVXIEHvwj6rp+rbvmUARY=; b=BLR7DmXeOhQIlDIXoi+tLBIC+8vqfJGIn2vFd+ompKEHjY/BzplHysCwwH+erlV4HeIpLM K2NKAv2WRxjaBi2AsuBEaS66aN4kHj2xua490egpnq0/Asg5sc59xiMybijdVJP0cA94s8 wwEyTFpwMmSpVx9uHUPzUaTTHTKHyYs= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-553-2Mtd71sMO32aePK4pwriVw-1; Mon, 13 Feb 2023 07:47:01 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 2Mtd71sMO32aePK4pwriVw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C389101A52E; Mon, 13 Feb 2023 12:47:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.24]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC82E2166B26; Mon, 13 Feb 2023 12:47:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 31DCkv6e3945890 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 13 Feb 2023 13:46:58 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 31DCkvQY3945889; Mon, 13 Feb 2023 13:46:57 +0100 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 13:46:56 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Richard Biener Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/108691 - indirect calls to setjmp Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20230213110058.0C9B61391B@imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 12:41:48PM +0000, Richard Biener wrote: > > Could we e.g. prevent turning such indirect calls into direct calls? > > We do exactly have gimple_call_fntype and gimple_call_ctrl_altering_p > to not require special-casing indirect to direct call promotion here. Ah, so if we make returns_twice apply to function types, then we could just compare if gimple_call_fntype has also returns_twice and if not, not consider it actually returns_twice. > > Anyway, notice_special_calls is called in various spots, not just DCE, > > wouldn't it be better to simply not set calls_setjmp flag in there if > > the current function already has cfg and the call isn't ctrl altering? > > I thought about changing gimple_call_flags instead, filtering out > ECF_RETURNS_TWICE. I just didn't make up my mind on what > property to key at (and to require 'cfun' to be set to query it). > But sure, changing notice_special_calls also works - the only > other relevant caller is the inliner I think, and that could be > replaced by caller |= callee of the two flags tracked instead of > re-scanning each inlined stmt. > > Would you be happy with changing notice_special_calls, dropping the > DCE hunk but keeping the cfgexpand/calls.cc hunks? I think so. Jakub