--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot ---
(In reply to wilco from comment #5)
> (In reply to avieira from comment #4)
> > OK so after some extra debugging and digging I found that the postreload
> > pass is basically turning the direct sibcall into an indirect sibcall. It
> > takes cost into consideration, but does this only looking at the operands of
> > the call, i.e. the cost of a symbolref vs the cost of a register. It does
> > not take into consideration that it is doing a call. This doesn't seem like
> > a good idea to me.
> Also it looks like various other targets may have the same issue as using
> one instruction for direct and indirect tailcalls is common among RISC
> targets.
> So this is another generic cost issue whether it isn't possible to return
> correct costs.

Regardless of whether the profitability logic is right or not, this is a
correctness question, so postreload should cancel this transformation
regardless of costs

Reply via email to