On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Jozef Lawrynowicz wrote: > This would have to be caught at the point that an optimization pass > first considers inserting a CALL to the interrupt, i.e., if the machine > description tries to prevent the generation of a call to an interrupt function > once the RTL has been generated (e.g. by blanking on the define_expand for > "call"), we are going to have ICEs/wrong code generated a lot of the time. > Particularly in the case originally mentioned here - there would be an empty > interrupt function.
Yeah, I imagine it would need to be a new target hook direct_call_allowed_p receiving a function decl, or something like that. > > (would it be possible to tell ICF that addresses of interrupt functions are > > not significant so it can fold them by creating aliases?) > > I'll take a look. Sorry, I didn't say explicitly, but that was meant more as a remark to IPA maintainers: currently in GCC "address taken" implies "address significant", so "address not significant" would have to be a new attribute, or a new decl bit (maybe preferable for languages where function addresses are not significant by default). Alexander
