On Thu, 24 Apr 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 11:51:49AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Here it is, ok if it passes bootstrap/regtest? I'll queue the interdiff
> > between this patch and the previous one for GCC 16.
>
> Here is the interdiff to improve the tail recursion h
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 11:51:49AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Here it is, ok if it passes bootstrap/regtest? I'll queue the interdiff
> between this patch and the previous one for GCC 16.
Here is the interdiff to improve the tail recursion handling also for
non-musttail calls.
Bootstrapped/re
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:46:15AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> This looks OK, but I wonder if ...
> > - /* The parameter should be a real operand, so that phi node
> > -created for it at the start of the function has the meaning
> > -of copying the value. This te
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This is a partial step towards fixing that PR.
> For musttail recursive calls which have non-is_gimple_reg_type typed
> parameters, the only case we've handled was if the exact parameter
> was passed through (perhaps modified, but still the same
Hi!
This is a partial step towards fixing that PR.
For musttail recursive calls which have non-is_gimple_reg_type typed
parameters, the only case we've handled was if the exact parameter
was passed through (perhaps modified, but still the same PARM_DECL).
That isn't necessary, we can copy the argu
