On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Richard Biener
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Dehao Chen <de...@google.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This patch was committed to google branch. But I think it is of
> > general interest. So is it ok for trunk?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dehao
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > 2013-06-03 Dehao Chen <de...@google.com>
> >
> > *gimple-low.c (gimple_check_call_args): Restrict the call_arg check to
> > contain same number of args.
> >
> > Index: gcc/gimple-low.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- gcc/gimple-low.c (revision 199570)
> > +++ gcc/gimple-low.c (working copy)
> > @@ -243,6 +243,8 @@ gimple_check_call_args (gimple stmt, tree fndecl)
> > && !fold_convertible_p (DECL_ARG_TYPE (p), arg)))
> > return false;
> > }
> > + if (p != NULL)
> > + return false;
>
> Please add a comment here, like
>
> /* Not enough parameters to the function call. */
> if (p != NULL)
> return false;
>
> note that I believe we can deal with this situation just fine during inlining,
> we just leave the parameters uninitialized.
>
> So - why do you think the test is a good idea? The whole function should
> ideally be not necessary and is just there to avoid situations we cannot
> deal with during inlining.
This check is necessary when profile does not match. E.g. if an
indirect call target profile is targeting to an incorrect callee, this
patch can make sure it's verified before actually transforming code.
This could happen is you use an out-of-date profile to optimize for
new code.
Dehao
>
> Richard.
>
> > }
> > else if (parms)
> > {
