On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 09:15:07AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > You probably need a virtual return thunk as otherwise we expand them > > directly to asm? > > I was trying x86_64 -m32 -fpic regparm (3) method with thunks so that > the asm isn't emitted. But the thunk was still using call to .LTHUNKN > rather than the actual method FUNCTION_DECL. Perhaps on targets without > proper alias support... > > > > Would you prefer just being silent in all thunks? > > > > Yes, I think all warnings from thunks are ultimately going to be bogus... > > Ok, I'll change the patch. > > > > That said, wonder about thunks (the non-ICF ones) from false-negative > > > diagnostic point as well, if I have some method with error/warning > > > attribute > > > and call a thunk instead, wonder if we get the diagnostic or not, thunks > > > likely don't have the attribute copied over to them. > > > > True... > > > > I guess we should not warn from thunks but instead move those attributes > > to the thunks so see if those get called in the end. > > Or in the expr.c code look through thunks to find the underlying function > and take DECL_ARGUMENTS from there.
If that's easily possible that sounds good as well of course. Richard.
