> Since all implementations of this hook will have to do the same, I think > it is better if you leave this test at the (only two) callers. The hook > doesn't need an argument then, and maybe is better named something like > setjmp_is_normal_call? (The original code did not test CALL_P btw).
Seconded, but I'd be even more explicit in the naming of the hook, for example setjmp_preserves_nonvolatile_registers or somesuch. (And I don't think that setjmp can be considered a normal call in any case since it returns twice). -- Eric Botcazou
