I will try again. First, the explicit call to "exit" is also being
optimized away.
Second, grepping indicates I am the only one in GCC trying to use
BUILT_IN_EXIT.
So, let me rephrase:
What GENERIC do I have to create that will do the equivalent of calling
exit() in a C program?
Thanks.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gcc <gcc-bounces~rdubner=symas....@gcc.gnu.org> On Behalf Of
Robert
> Dubner
> Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2025 18:19
> To: GCC Mailing List <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: RE: COBOL: Call to builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT), is
> optimized away.
>
> I stated that poorly. After I generate the GENERIC, and I hand the tree
> over to the middle end, it is the call to BUILT_IN_EXIT that seems to be
> disappearing.
>
> Everything I describe here is occurring with a -O0 build of GCC and
> GCOBOL.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Dubner <rdub...@symas.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2025 18:16
> > To: 'GCC Mailing List' <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> > Cc: Robert Dubner <rdub...@symas.com>
> > Subject: COBOL: Call to builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT), is
> > optimized away.
> >
> > The COBOL compiler has this routine:
> >
> > void
> > gg_exit(tree exit_code)
> > {
> > tree the_call =
> > build_call_expr_loc(location_from_lineno(),
> > builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT),
> > 1,
> > exit_code);
> > gg_append_statement(the_call);
> > }
> >
> > I have found that when GCOBOL is used with -O2, -O3, or -Os, the call
to
> > gg_exit() is optimized away, and the intended exit value is lost, and
I
> > end up with zero.
> >
> > By changing the routine to
> >
> > void
> > gg_exit(tree exit_code)
> > {
> > tree args[1] = {exit_code};
> > tree function = gg_get_function_address(INT, "exit");
> > tree the_call = build_call_array_loc (location_from_lineno(),
> > VOID,
> > function,
> > 1,
> > args);
> > gg_append_statement(the_call);
> > }
> >
> > the call is not optimized away, and the generated executable behaves
as
> > expected.
> >
> > How do I prevent the call to gg_exit() from being optimized away?
> >
> > Thanks!
