On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:40:25AM -0400, Christopher Li wrote: > 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. Yes. Calling conventions are often like this. isn't the opposite direction somehow less meaningful? > You are forcing the back end to simulate a push stack to > properly process the function call. That's not true. Look at the LLVM backend. -- Luc -- 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
