On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:00:50AM -0400, Christopher Li wrote: >> >> I think he means the push instruction is not in the bb->insns list. >> >> I agree with that view. > > But these instructions *are* in the bb->insns list. If they are in the bb->insns, that is even worse in my book. It means the back end processing the IR need to remember the state to match up push into the calling arguments. The call instruction show up *after* the push. You are forcing the back end to simulate a push stack to properly process the function call. When the back end see the push instruction, they have noway of known the following call will use varidic or not. The back end have to save the state to wait for the call instruction. You might just as well give call instruction a separate type list matching the calling one. That at least don't show up as bb->insns. I still want to explore Linus's first suggestion, give pseudo a type. Using the OP_SETVAL, When I get a chance. Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
