Hi!
This patch (on top of the just posted gsi_safe_insert* fixes patch)
fixes the instrumentation of large/huge _BitInt SSA_NAME arguments of
returns_twice calls.
In this case it isn't just a matter of using gsi_safe_insert_before instead
of gsi_insert_before, we need to do more.
One thing is th
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This patch (on top of the just posted gsi_safe_insert* fixes patch)
> fixes the instrumentation of large/huge _BitInt SSA_NAME arguments of
> returns_twice calls.
>
> In this case it isn't just a matter of using gsi_safe_insert_before instead
>
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 09:48:45AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Ugh. OK, but I wonder whether we might want to simply delay
> fixing the CFG for inserts before returns-twice? Would that make
> things less ugly?
You mean in lower_call just remember if we added anything before
ECF_RETURNS_TWICE
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 09:48:45AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Ugh. OK, but I wonder whether we might want to simply delay
> > fixing the CFG for inserts before returns-twice? Would that make
> > things less ugly?
>
> You mean in lower_call just
