On 05/28/2017 06:31 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> __atomic_add_fetch adds a value to some memory, and returns the result.
> If there is no direct support for this, expand_builtin_atomic_fetch_op
> is asked to implement this as __atomic_fetch_add (which returns the
> original value of the mem), followed by the addition. Now, the
> __atomic_add_fetch could have been a tail call, but we shouldn't
> perform the __atomic_fetch_add as a tail call: following code would
> not be executed, and in fact thrown away because there is a barrier
> after tail calls.
>
> This fixes it.
>
> Tested on powerpc64-linux {-m32,-m64}. Is this okay for trunk?
>
>
> Segher
>
>
> 2017-05-28 Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>
>
> PR middle-end/80902
> * builtins.c (expand_builtin_atomic_fetch_op): If emitting code after
> a call, force the call to not be a tail call.
Hmmm. I wonder if we have similar problems elsewhere. For example
expand_builtin_int_roundingfn_2, stack_protect_epilogue,
expand_builtin_trap (though this one probably isn't broken in practice),
expand_ifn_atomic_compare_exchange_into_call.
OK, but please check the other instances where we call expand_call, then
continue generating code afterwards. Fixing those can be a follow-up patch.
Sorry for the delay.
Jeff
