Re: [PATCH v8 09/12] Delay caller error reporting for musttail

> > Overall the logic in this pass is rather convoluted and > > could deserve some cleanups and separation of concerns. > > e.g. it would be better to separate tail calls and tail > > recursion. But I'm not trying to rewrite the pass here. > > Understood. For a v9, can you squash the

Re: [PATCH v8 09/12] Delay caller error reporting for musttail

On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 7:08 PM Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 01:45:17PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 9:00 PM Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > Move the error reporting for caller attributes to be > > > after the tail call discovery, so that we can give

Re: [PATCH v8 09/12] Delay caller error reporting for musttail

On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 01:45:17PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 9:00 PM Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Move the error reporting for caller attributes to be > > after the tail call discovery, so that we can give proper > > error messages tagged to the calls. > > Hmm. This

Re: [PATCH v8 09/12] Delay caller error reporting for musttail

On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 9:00 PM Andi Kleen wrote: > > Move the error reporting for caller attributes to be > after the tail call discovery, so that we can give proper > error messages tagged to the calls. Hmm. This all gets a bit awkward. I realize that early checking gets us less compile-time

[PATCH v8 09/12] Delay caller error reporting for musttail

Move the error reporting for caller attributes to be after the tail call discovery, so that we can give proper error messages tagged to the calls. gcc/ChangeLog: * tree-tailcall.cc (maybe_error_musttail): Declare. (suitable_for_tail_opt_p): Take call and report errors.