On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:52:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 09:39:42AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
What about the:
I wonder if the nonfreeing_call_p function shouldn't be moved elsewhere
though (suggestion where), so that gimple.c doesn't need the cgraph
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:52:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 09:39:42AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
What about the:
I wonder if the nonfreeing_call_p function shouldn't be moved
elsewhere
though (suggestion where), so that gimple.c doesn't need the
Hi!
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:11:08AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Actually I think you want to do this for can_throw, too.
We probably do not have throwing internal calls, but it is better to be safe.
I'll leave that change to you ;), as I said in my last mail, it isn't
immediately clear to me
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:11:08AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Actually I think you want to do this for can_throw, too.
We probably do not have throwing internal calls, but it is better to be safe.
I'll leave that
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 09:39:42AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
What about the:
I wonder if the nonfreeing_call_p function shouldn't be moved elsewhere
though (suggestion where), so that gimple.c doesn't need the cgraph
includes.
question though (maybe it is more on Richard)?
Tried
