On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Now - I can see how that is easily confused by the static chain > > being address-taken. But I also remember that Eric did some > > preparatory work to fix that, for nested functions, that is, > > possibly setting DECL_NONADDRESSABLE_P? Don't remember exactly. > > The preparatory work is DECL_NONLOCAL_FRAME. The complete patch which does > something along these lines is attached to PR tree-optimization/54779 (latest > version, for a 4.9-based compiler).
Ah, now I remember - this was to be able to optimize away the frame variable in case the nested function was inlined. Toms case is somewhat different as I undestand as somehow LIM store motion doesn't handle indirect frame accesses well enough(?) So he intends to load register vars in the frame into registers at the beginning of the nested function and restore them to the frame on function exit (this will probably break for recursive calls, but OMP offloading might be special enough that this is a non-issue there). So marking the frame decl won't help him here (I thought we might mark the FIELD_DECLs corresponding to individual vars). OTOH inside the nested function accesses to the static chain should be easy to identify. Richard.
