This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] split tree_type, a.k.a. "tuplifying types"
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- To: Nathan Froyd <froydnj at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:28:06 -0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] split tree_type, a.k.a. "tuplifying types"
- References: <20110510161543.GW23480@codesourcery.com>
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 13:15, Nathan Froyd <froydnj@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Other types can of course be shrunk, but the memory savings from doing
> so will be negligible
Have you done any measurements on the potential savings?
> +static void
> +lto_input_ts_type_common_tree_pointers (struct lto_input_block *ib,
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â struct data_in *data_in, tree expr)
> +{
> + ÂTYPE_SIZE (expr) = lto_input_tree (ib, data_in);
> + ÂTYPE_SIZE_UNIT (expr) = lto_input_tree (ib, data_in);
> + ÂTYPE_ATTRIBUTES (expr) = lto_input_tree (ib, data_in);
> + ÂTYPE_NAME (expr) = lto_input_tree (ib, data_in);
> + Â/* Do not stream TYPE_POINTER_TO or TYPE_REFERENCE_TO. Â*/
Add some wording as to why not? This was copied from existing
comments, but I do not remember why we were doing this. Not too
critical, anyway.
OK, otherwise. Thanks for doing this!
Diego.