This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] SFTs on complex type
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:30:35 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFC] SFTs on complex type
- References: <f2a05f90007407f0ff10cc79d7c86637@physics.uc.edu>
On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 12:10 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> While looking at PR 25513 and PR 24365, I noticed that we did not have
> SFTs
> on complex type. This patch implements SFTs on complex types with a
> very
> simple patch. It "steals" part of Richard Guenther's patch for SFT for
> arrays.
> The part which is required to move away from dependent on SFT are only
> on fields.
>
> Should I split Richard's patch from mine and submit that separate?
>
> The only complex thing in my patch is the patch to var_can_have_subvars
> as we can have both complex types which are gimple registers (which has
> a SSA_NAME associated with it). If we just say all variables can have
> subvars, we get an ICE in tree-complex.c lowering the arithmetic as we
> don't create a SSA_NAME for those variables even though we should have.
Uh, so, if that's a bug, why not fix it?
1. the MTAG_P check could go first, since no memory tag ever has
subvars.
2. In create_variable_info_for, the field names will now look like
"foo.1" instead of (at the very least) "foo.a".
The name was there for debugging purposes. If you are going to change
it, at least change it to use the offset.
--Dan