------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03 21:12 ------- > I don't think I'd try to be that clever. We might want the > stabilization to occur even in other cases. In looking at it more > closely, it definitely looks like stabilize_reference should deal with > CALL_EXPRs.
But then what's the difference with setting TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS on CALL_EXPRs? Also for 3.4.x some FE don't use tree inlining at all so I don't think they should be penalized because of the C++ FE. > (I guess I was thinking that the problem with the duplicate labels could > be avoided in the inliner by generating fresh labels. But, maybe that's > not going to work for other reasons.) How would you do that exactly? In our present case, the inliner inlines exactly one CALL_EXPR, but it is referenced twice in another tree. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17972