On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 3:16 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 7/15/21 3:06 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 1:06 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> Well, if we don't adjust gimple_call_return_type() to handle built-ins > >> with no LHS, then we must adjust the callers. > >> > >> The attached patch fixes gimple_expr_type() per it's documentation: > >> > >> /* Return the type of the main expression computed by STMT. Return > >> void_type_node if the statement computes nothing. */ > >> > >> Currently gimple_expr_type is ICEing because it calls > >> gimple_call_return_type. > >> > >> I still think gimple_call_return_type should return void_type_node > >> instead of ICEing, but this will also fix my problem. > >> > >> Anyone have a problem with this? > > > > It's still somewhat inconsistent, no? Because for a call without a LHS > > it's now either void_type_node or the type of the return value. > > > > It's probably known I dislike gimple_expr_type itself (it was introduced > > to make the transition to tuples easier). I wonder why you can't simply > > fix range_of_call to do > > > > tree lhs = gimple_call_lhs (call); > > if (lhs) > > type = TREE_TYPE (lhs); > > That would still leave gimple_expr_type() broken. It's comment clearly > says it should return void_type_node.
Does it? What does it say for int foo (); and the stmt 'foo ();' ? How's this different from 'bar ();' when bar is an internal function? Note how the comment speaks about 'type of the main EXPRESSION' and 'if the STATEMEMT computes nothing' (emphasis mine). I don't think it's all that clear. A gimple_cond stmt doesn't compute anything, does it? Does the 'foo ()' statement compute anything? The current implementation (and your patched one) says so. But why does .ADD_OVERFLOW (_1, _2); not (according to your patched implementation)? It computes something and that something has a type that depends on the types of _1 and _2 and on the actual internal function. But we don't have it readily available. If you need it then you are on your own - but returning void_type_node is wrong. Richard. > I still think we should just fix gimple_call_return_type to return > void_type_node instead of ICEing. >
