On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: > Michael Matz <m...@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.
