> On 07/11/2009 10:59 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >I would like to bring more of EH lowering to tree level (i.e. instead of
> >relying on RTL to lower RESX instructions into gotos/calls/jumptables do
> >this at gimple and keep to RTL world only job of constructing landing
> >pads).
>
> Sure. Should
On 07/11/2009 10:59 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
I would like to bring more of EH lowering to tree level (i.e. instead of
relying on RTL to lower RESX instructions into gotos/calls/jumptables do
this at gimple and keep to RTL world only job of constructing landing
pads).
Sure. Should probably turn E
> On 07/11/2009 05:59 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >Well, we can either teach inlinable_call_p to handle your new indirect
> >calls as "for sure uninlinable", make it conservative and consider all
> >calls inlinable or we can stop doing the early removal of MUST_NOT_THROW
> >receivers.
>
> I think thi
On 07/11/2009 05:59 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Well, we can either teach inlinable_call_p to handle your new indirect
calls as "for sure uninlinable", make it conservative and consider all
calls inlinable or we can stop doing the early removal of MUST_NOT_THROW
receivers.
I think this last option w
> Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg01404.html
>
> Do you have test cases for this?
>
> Changing can_throw_internal/external to depend on whether or not future
> inlining is possible looks *very* wrong to me. Surely the only thing
> that matters for new code that might appear "b
