This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, PR 45699] Devirtualize to thunks
- From: Martin Jambor <mjambor at suse dot cz>
- To: Benjamin Redelings I <benjamin dot redelings at nescent dot org>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:02:23 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, PR 45699] Devirtualize to thunks
- References: <4CB4C377.3030305@nescent.org>
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 04:22:15PM -0400, Benjamin Redelings I wrote:
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> folding of OBJ_TYPE_REFs just takes the function declaration in BINFOs
> >> and puts into the call statement. Unfortunately BINFOs do not put the
> >> declaration of the proper thunk there and so we might ending up not
> >> adjusting the this pointer like in the testcase below. On the other
> >> hand, BINFOs do contain the deltas and so the folding code can look up
> >> the right thunk in the call graph if need be. This is what the patch
> >> below does.
> Thank you! That's great. I can now test gcc 4.6 at -O and -O2...
> O3 still gives segfaults.
No worries. Thanks for testing.
>
> >>
> >> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux without any issues. OK for
> >> trunk?
> >
> >I guess we should also add an folder that transforms calls to thunk to call to
> >the function so inlining and other IPA stuff work?
> >At the moment i think both ipa-prop and inliner will get direct calls to thunks wrong.
> Should I submit a bugzilla bug for this, as is, or do you need a testcase?
> (I'm sure I can get one by whittling down my code, but last time it
> took about 4 hours to do this, so if there's a faster way ... :-P)
Do you mean the segfaults you are experiencing? Yes, please file a
bug for them. If not, then we will remember to revisit this
ourselves.
Thanks,
Martin