------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03 22:02 ------- > There are other places where TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS matters. (Like, "do we > have to emit this expression at all, if its result is not used?")
OK. > The counter to your argument is that I don't see why the C++ front end > should be penalized because other front ends have a workaround for what > seems to be a bug in the middle end. Agreed. But I also think that the FEs that don't use tree inlining cannot even remotely be affected by the problem, so certainly shouldn't be penalized either. > The stated purpose for stabilize_reference is to make it possible to use > an expression more than once. If CALL_EXPRs can't be used more than > once (which your research would seem to prove), then it seems like > stabilize_reference should handle that. Sure, but I think CALL_EXPRs without TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS can be reused more than once, once tree inlining is done, if they happen not to have been inlined. At least we don't have counter-examples yet. > OK, I'm confused, then -- I think that either we have to fix this > problem in stabilize_reference (which seems better to me) or always set > TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS on CALL_EXPRs in build3. stabilize_reference is fine with me. We now only have to settle on the granularity of the change. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17972
