This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Take 3: RFA: re-instate struct_equiv code
- From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>
- To: Joern RENNECKE <joern dot rennecke at st dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:16:07 +0100
- Subject: Re: Take 3: RFA: re-instate struct_equiv code
- References: <43EA0A69.6030007@st.com> <43F67B2C.2000109@t-online.de> <43F9C956.7070701@st.com>
Joern RENNECKE wrote:
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Joern, what are your comments?
I rather prefer to leave cross-jumping where it is, and adjust the code
to expect that some registers may actually be dead when they are live
according to global_regs_live_at_end.
Downsides to this:
- it's harder to understand exactly which inconsistencies are ok
rather than disallowing them
- allowing "harmless" inconsistencies increases the risk that
something that isn't quite so safe slips through
- additional dependencies between cfgrtl.c and crossjumping with the
new "maybe_killed_regs" thing.
I think this is way into "too clever" territory and would be a
maintenance nightmare. Without a very good reason I don't think we
should go this way if a sane approach works.
Bernd