On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 09:15:07AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> You probably need a virtual return thunk as otherwise we expand them
> directly to asm?

I was trying x86_64 -m32 -fpic regparm (3) method with thunks so that
the asm isn't emitted.  But the thunk was still using call to .LTHUNKN
rather than the actual method FUNCTION_DECL.  Perhaps on targets without
proper alias support...

> > Would you prefer just being silent in all thunks?
> Yes, I think all warnings from thunks are ultimately going to be bogus...

Ok, I'll change the patch.

> > That said, wonder about thunks (the non-ICF ones) from false-negative
> > diagnostic point as well, if I have some method with error/warning attribute
> > and call a thunk instead, wonder if we get the diagnostic or not, thunks
> > likely don't have the attribute copied over to them.
> True...
> I guess we should not warn from thunks but instead move those attributes
> to the thunks so see if those get called in the end.

Or in the expr.c code look through thunks to find the underlying function
and take DECL_ARGUMENTS from there.


Reply via email to