Re: [v5,2/4] RISC-V: Add Zicfilp ISA extension

On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 13:30:39 +0800, Monk Chiang wrote: > Hi Jin Ma, > This situation is the same on x86. When using -O0, the lpad instruction > is merely a redundant instruction and does not affect the execution result. > This is the ASM result for x86, and there is also an endbr64 in foo(). >

Re: [v5,2/4] RISC-V: Add Zicfilp ISA extension

Hi Jin Ma, This situation is the same on x86. When using -O0, the lpad instruction is merely a redundant instruction and does not affect the execution result. This is the ASM result for x86, and there is also an endbr64 in foo(). https://godbolt.org/z/M1fTendE3 On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 5:4

Re: [v5,2/4] RISC-V: Add Zicfilp ISA extension

Hi, Monk Chiang I noticed that at -O0, static functions are emitting lpad instructions, whereas they do not at -O2. I'm not sure if this is expected behavior. Upon further investigation, I found that c_node->only_called_directly_p() returns false, which is caused by force_output being set to 1.