On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:13:40AM +0200, Andrea Corallo wrote: > Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > > So I wonder if this cannot be done with some kind of NOTE, instead? > > I was having a look into reworking this using an insn note as (IIUC) > suggested. The idea is appealing but looking into insn-notes.def I've > found the following comment: > > "We are slowly removing the concept of insn-chain notes from the > compiler. Adding new codes to this file is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. > If you think you need one, look for other ways to express what you > mean, such as register notes or bits in the basic-block structure."
That is from 2004. Since then 9 note types have been removed, but 7 new types added. (There are 18 insn note types now). > Would still be justificated in this case to proceed this way? Yes, it is a lesser evil imho. > The other > option would be to add the information into the basic-block or into > struct rtx_jump_insn. Or just look at the insn code, define a "filler-nop" insn, allow those after BBs? Any reason that wouldn't work? Segher
