On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:02:18PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/12/2016 05:10 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >This patch arranges for a new argument to
> >convert_memory_address_addr_space_1 and calls it with that new argument set
> >to true, to make sure it never emits instructions or creates pseudos.
>
> I think the approach looks sensible, but I don't know if you need the extra
> argument. It looks like convert_memory_address_addr_space_1 currently only
> has one user, can't you move the convert_modes call up into that function so
> that convert_memory_address_addr_space_1 never emits anything?
convert_memory_address_addr_space_1 is recursive function, so it has more
than one caller (convert_memory_address_addr_space and itself).
Which actually means that the patch is wrong, for no_emit on the recursive
calls it should actually check the result of the recursive call and
return NULL immediately if the recursive call returned NULL.
So, would you be ok with the patch if I change it that way (to be tested
tomorrow)?
Jakub
