Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/29/2016 11:39 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > > I forgot to ask, would it be reasonable to add an assert to check we're not > > in > > a sequence in leaf_function_p? I guess this will trigger on several targets > > (leaf_function_p is used in several backends) but it's a real bug if > > crtl->is_leaf is true. > Can it wait for the next stage1? I'd hate to start tripping the assert > all over the place at this point in the release cycle.
Yes I don't think it is urgent as the incorrect value returned would likely make a leaf function save/restore the return address unnecessarily. It starts to generate incorrect code on ARM if you remove the if (reload_completed) test in arm_get_frame_offsets (which should just be an optimization to avoid recomputing the frame layout repeatedly, not essential for correctness). Wilco
