On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 04:28:33PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> As promised in <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01638.html>,
> this is a simple clean-up which makes use of a new predicate. Richi suggested
> adding maybe_drop_lhs_from_noreturn_call which would be nicer, but I didn't
> know how to do that, given the handling if lhs is an SSA_NAME.
Shouldn't it be should_remove_lhs_p instead?
I mean, it is not just an optimization, but part of how we define the IL.
Shouldn't it be also used in tree-cfg.c (verify_gimple_call)?
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
>
> 2016-05-23 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
>
> * tree.h (can_remove_lhs_p): New predicate.
> * cgraph.c (cgraph_edge::redirect_call_stmt_to_callee): Use it.
> * gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_call): Likewise.
> * gimplify.c (gimplify_modify_expr): Likewise.
> * tree-cfgcleanup.c (fixup_noreturn_call): Likewise.
Jakub
