Re: [PATCH 0/2] tree-optimization/104530 - proposed re-evaluation.

2022-02-23 Thread Martin Uecker via Gcc-patches
> > On 2/22/2022 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:39:28PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > >>> That is EH, then there are calls that might not return because they leave > >>> in some other way (e.g. longjmp), or might loop forever, might exit, might > >>>

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tree-optimization/104530 - proposed re-evaluation.

2022-02-23 Thread Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
On 2/23/22 02:48, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:19 PM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote: On 2/22/22 13:07, Jeff Law wrote: On 2/22/2022 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:39:28PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: That is EH, then there

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tree-optimization/104530 - proposed re-evaluation.

2022-02-22 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:19 PM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On 2/22/22 13:07, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > > On 2/22/2022 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:39:28PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > That is EH, then there are calls that migh

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tree-optimization/104530 - proposed re-evaluation.

2022-02-22 Thread Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
On 2/22/22 13:07, Jeff Law wrote: On 2/22/2022 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:39:28PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: That is EH, then there are calls that might not return because they leave in some other way (e.g. longjmp), or might loop forever, migh

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tree-optimization/104530 - proposed re-evaluation.

2022-02-22 Thread Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
On 2/22/2022 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:39:28PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: That is EH, then there are calls that might not return because they leave in some other way (e.g. longjmp), or might loop forever, might exit, might abort, trap etc. Ge

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tree-optimization/104530 - proposed re-evaluation.

2022-02-22 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:39:28PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > > That is EH, then there are calls that might not return because they leave > > in some other way (e.g. longjmp), or might loop forever, might exit, might > > abort, trap etc. > Generally speaking, calls which do not return should no

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tree-optimization/104530 - proposed re-evaluation.

2022-02-22 Thread Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
On 2/22/22 11:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:39:41AM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:  I'd like to get clarification on some subtle terminology. I find I am conflating calls that don't return with calls that may throw, and I think they have different considerations. My experim

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tree-optimization/104530 - proposed re-evaluation.

2022-02-22 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:39:41AM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: >  I'd like to get clarification on some subtle terminology. I find I am > conflating calls that don't return with calls that may throw, and I think > they have different considerations. > > My experiments with calls that can throw in

[PATCH 0/2] tree-optimization/104530 - proposed re-evaluation.

2022-02-22 Thread Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
 I'd like to get clarification on some subtle terminology. I find I am conflating calls that don't return with calls that may throw, and I think they have different considerations. My experiments with calls that can throw indicate that they always end a basic block.  This makes sense to me as