Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/109304 - properly handle instrumented aliases

> > > > I do not think LTO is of any help here. You can allways call non-LTO > > const function from outer-world and that function can will end up > > calling back to instrumented const function in your unit which > > effectively makes the extenral const function non-const. > > Hmm, true. > >

Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/109304 - properly handle instrumented aliases

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > > > > When adjusting calls to reflect instrumentation we failed to handle > > > > > calls to aliases since they appear to have no body. Instead

Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/109304 - properly handle instrumented aliases

> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > > When adjusting calls to reflect instrumentation we failed to handle > > > > calls to aliases since they appear to have no body. Instead resort > > > > to symtab node availability. The

Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/109304 - properly handle instrumented aliases

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 01:21:40AM +0200, Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > It is however really side case and I am worried about dropping > > > pure/const from builtin declarations... > > > > Yeah, that can certainly break stuff. See e.g. the

Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/109304 - properly handle instrumented aliases

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > When adjusting calls to reflect instrumentation we failed to handle > > > calls to aliases since they appear to have no body. Instead resort > > > to symtab node availability. The patch also avoids

Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/109304 - properly handle instrumented aliases

> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 01:21:40AM +0200, Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches wrote: > > It is however really side case and I am worried about dropping > > pure/const from builtin declarations... > > Yeah, that can certainly break stuff. See e.g. the recently fixed > ICE when memcmp wasn't pure in

Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/109304 - properly handle instrumented aliases

On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 01:21:40AM +0200, Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches wrote: > It is however really side case and I am worried about dropping > pure/const from builtin declarations... Yeah, that can certainly break stuff. See e.g. the recently fixed ICE when memcmp wasn't pure in PR109258.

Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/109304 - properly handle instrumented aliases

> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Richard Biener wrote: > > > When adjusting calls to reflect instrumentation we failed to handle > > calls to aliases since they appear to have no body. Instead resort > > to symtab node availability. The patch also avoids touching > > internal function calls in a more

Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/109304 - properly handle instrumented aliases

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Richard Biener wrote: > When adjusting calls to reflect instrumentation we failed to handle > calls to aliases since they appear to have no body. Instead resort > to symtab node availability. The patch also avoids touching > internal function calls in a more obvious way

[PATCH] tree-optimization/109304 - properly handle instrumented aliases

When adjusting calls to reflect instrumentation we failed to handle calls to aliases since they appear to have no body. Instead resort to symtab node availability. The patch also avoids touching internal function calls in a more obvious way (builtins might have a body available).