Re: [IFUNC}: Properly handle indirect function return

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM, H.J. Lu<hongjiu.lu@...> wrote:
> Hi,
> +    case GIMPLE_RETURN:
> +      if (DECL_IS_IFUNC (current_function_decl))
> +       {
> +         if (dump_file)
> +           fprintf (dump_file, "    Indirect function is not const/pure");
> +         local->pure_const_state = IPA_NEITHER;
> +       }
> +      break;

This seems like the incorrect place to put this check as it does not
depend on the return statement.  It seems like it is better if it is
put analyze_function and then skip the walk of the IR.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski