This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

getting rid of ggc_push_context (was Re: Cleanup tree_rest_of_compilation interface)


> Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> writes:
> 
> > 2004-10-01  Jan Hubicka  <jh@suse.cz>
> > 	* c-decl.c (c_expand_body): Update call tree_rest_of_compilation.
> > 	* cgraphunit.c (cgraph_build_static_cdtor): Likewise.
> > 	* toplev.h (tree_rest_of_compilation): Update prototype.
> > 	* tree-optimize.c (tree_rest_of_compilation):  Kill nested_p argument.
> >
> > 	* misc.c (gnat_expand_body): Update call of tree_rest_of_compilation.
> >
> > 	* semantics.c (expand_body): Update call of tree_rest_of_compilation.
> >
> > 	* f95-lang.c (gfc_expand_function): Update call of
> > 	tree_rest_of_compilation.
> > 	* trans-decl.c (gfc_generate_constructors): Likewise.
> >
> > 	* java.c (java_expand_body): Update call of tree_rest_of_compilation.
> >
> > 	* treetree.c (treeland_expand_function): Update call of
> > 	tree_rest_of_compilation.
> 
> Ok.

Thanks.
I wonder how desirable is to get rid of ggc_push_context/ggc_pop_context
machinery.  It should not be terribly dificult deal to make cse.c ggc
safe but without using ggc_free that would bring other expenses.
What GGC guys prefer?

Perhaps it might be possible to trottle the cse memory consumption too.
Does someone recall why this call has been added?

Honza
> 
> zw


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]