On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:30:19AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > --- gcc/tree-inline.c.jj 2011-06-02 10:15:20.000000000 +0200
>> > +++ gcc/tree-inline.c 2011-06-03 09:29:15.000000000 +0200
>> > @@ -4108,6 +4108,14 @@ fold_marked_statements (int first, struc
>> > if (fold_stmt (&gsi))
>> > {
>> > gimple new_stmt;
>> > + /* If a builtin at the end of a bb folded into
>> > nothing,
>> > + the following loop won't work. */
>> > + if (gsi_end_p (gsi))
>> > + {
>> > + cgraph_update_edges_for_call_stmt (old_stmt,
>> > old_decl,
>> > +
>> > gimple_build_nop ());
>>
>> This? Esp. I don't like the gimple_build_nop () here too much.
>
> Yeah, I've talked about it in my patch comment.
> E.g. cgraph_update_edges_for_call_stmt could accept NULL as new_stmt, or we
> could add e.g.
>
> void
> cgraph_remove_edges_for_call_stmt (gimple old_stmt)
> {
> struct cgraph_node *orig = cgraph_get_node (cfun->decl);
> struct cgraph_node *node;
> struct cgraph_edge *e;
>
> gcc_checking_assert (orig);
> e = cgraph_edge (orig, old_stmt);
> if (e)
> cgraph_remove_edge (e);
> if (orig->clones)
> for (node = orig->clones; node != orig; )
> {
> e = cgraph_edge (node, old_stmt);
> if (e)
> cgraph_remove_edge (e);
> if (node->clones)
> node = node->clones;
> else if (node->next_sibling_clone)
> node = node->next_sibling_clone;
> else
> {
> while (node != orig && !node->next_sibling_clone)
> node = node->clone_of;
> if (node != orig)
> node = node->next_sibling_clone;
> }
> }
> }
>
> I think NULL new_stmt would have the advantage that we wouldn't duplicate
> the complex code looping through all kinds of clones.
Yeah, I'd prefer that variant. Honza?
Richard.
> Jakub
>
