From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E406FC433F5 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 21:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233335AbhKSV7I (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 16:59:08 -0500 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:47940 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232776AbhKSV7I (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 16:59:08 -0500 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 1AJLqurk020776; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 15:52:56 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 1AJLqtqK020775; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 15:52:55 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 15:52:55 -0600 From: Segher Boessenkool To: David Malcolm Cc: Joseph Myers , Prathamesh Kulkarni , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Add returns_zero_on_success/failure attributes Message-ID: <20211119215255.GJ614@gate.crashing.org> References: <20211113203732.2098220-1-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <20211113203732.2098220-4-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <15adb3a2a70b0d2973c30dd6d7da383ad62f413a.camel@redhat.com> <20211118200843.GY614@gate.crashing.org> <31ddd9b4d47f0e105635849a079b1de659854a23.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <31ddd9b4d47f0e105635849a079b1de659854a23.camel@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 06:45:42PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2021-11-18 at 14:08 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > We need some way to describe these things in Gimple and RTL as well, > > and not just on function calls: also on other expressions.  Adding > > attributes that allow to describe this (partially, only per function) > > in > > C source code does not bring us closer to where we need to be. > > Right, but those IR concerns are orthogonal to the needs of the patch > kit, which is a way to express certain *other* things per-function in > the C frontend.   My fear is that such band-aids will only make attacking the long standing hard problems even harder. > As noted in my other replies, this thread seems to be turning into > something of a scope-creep pile-on, when I have some specific things I > need for the rest of the patch kit, and they're unrelated to the > problems of errno or floating-point handling. I am just asking to think about the broader picture, and see how this fits in there. Segher