Hi, > On Mar 17, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > No, I was confused in thinking gimplify_expr would handle the case > properly. For > just gimplifying side-effects we should use the middle-end > gimplification machinery: > > Index: tree-stdarg.c > =================================================================== > --- tree-stdarg.c (revision 246188) > +++ tree-stdarg.c (working copy) > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. > #include "gimple-iterator.h" > #include "gimple-walk.h" > #include "gimplify.h" > +#include "gimplify-me.h" > #include "tree-into-ssa.h" > #include "tree-cfg.h" > #include "tree-stdarg.h" > @@ -1058,12 +1059,12 @@ expand_ifn_va_arg_1 (function *fun) > gimplify_assign (lhs, expr, &pre); > } > else > - gimplify_expr (&expr, &pre, &post, is_gimple_lvalue, fb_lvalue); > + force_gimple_operand (expr, &pre, false, NULL_TREE); > > input_location = saved_location; > pop_gimplify_context (NULL); > > - gimple_seq_add_seq (&pre, post); > + gimple_seq_add_seq_without_update (&pre, post); > update_modified_stmts (pre); > > /* Add the sequence after IFN_VA_ARG. This splits the bb right > @@ -1072,11 +1073,10 @@ expand_ifn_va_arg_1 (function *fun) > gimple_find_sub_bbs (pre, &i); > > /* Remove the IFN_VA_ARG gimple_call. It's the last stmt in the > - bb. */ > + bb if we added any stmts. */ > unlink_stmt_vdef (stmt); > release_ssa_name_fn (fun, gimple_vdef (stmt)); > gsi_remove (&i, true); > - gcc_assert (gsi_end_p (i)); > > /* We're walking here into the bbs which contain the expansion of > IFN_VA_ARG, and will not contain another IFN_VA_ARG that needs
Looks good, but for some reason I hit a segfault in the linker building gengtype when I tried to bootstrap with this. I assume it's something latent and unrelated, but will need to investigate. Bill
