On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 04:27:49PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>Well yes - it is of course similar broken in spirit but at least a lot
> >>simpler ;) I'd put a comment there why we do check g for NULL.
> >But it increases overhead, there are hundreds of gimple_location calls
> >and most of them will never pass NULL. Can't you simply
> >do what you do in the inline here in the couple of spots where
> >the stmt might be NULL?
> Sure, do you have any suggestion how should be called such function?
> Suggestion: gimple_location_or_unknown ?
gimple_location_safe or gimple_safe_location?
Jakub
