On 5/28/19 9:48 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:30:59AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> We shouldn't generate ENDBR in that case, nothing can goto to bar (otherwise
>>> it would remain a normal label, not a deleted label).
>>>
>>
>> But return value of func () may be used with indir
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:30:59AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > We shouldn't generate ENDBR in that case, nothing can goto to bar (otherwise
> > it would remain a normal label, not a deleted label).
> >
>
> But return value of func () may be used with indirect jump.
No, it may be used say to print t
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 8:16 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:10:19AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:57 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 07:02:11AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > > > For NOTE_INSN_DELETED_LABEL, we should check if
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:10:19AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:57 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 07:02:11AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > > For NOTE_INSN_DELETED_LABEL, we should check if forced_labels to see
> > > > if its address is taken. Also ix86_
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:57 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 07:02:11AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > For NOTE_INSN_DELETED_LABEL, we should check if forced_labels to see
> > > if its address is taken. Also ix86_init_large_pic_reg shouldn't set
> > > LABEL_PRESERVE_P (in_struct)
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 07:02:11AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > For NOTE_INSN_DELETED_LABEL, we should check if forced_labels to see
> > if its address is taken. Also ix86_init_large_pic_reg shouldn't set
> > LABEL_PRESERVE_P (in_struct) since NOTE_INSN_DELETED_LABEL is suffcient
> > to keep the labe
