This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] 19/n: trans-mem: compiler tree/gimple stuff
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/04/2011 07:36 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 11/04/2011 03:36 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>>> + ? ?case GIMPLE_TRANSACTION:
>>>>> + ? ? ?return (weights->tm_cost
>>>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? + estimate_num_insns_seq (gimple_transaction_body (stmt),
>>>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? weights));
>>>>> +
>>> Huh, so we now have non-lowered gimple sub-sequence throughout all
>>> optimizations (inlining especially)? ?:(
>>
>> No. ?I'm not sure why we're still looking at gimple_transaction_body
>> here -- that should be NULL after lowering.
> ... of course, I'm not sure why we're looking at all those other
> nested statements there inside the inliner either. ?At least we're
> doing the same thing as everyone else here.
It might be because of nested function lowering which works on
gimple like it falls out of the gimplifier. So it might all be correct
after all ...
Sorry for the noise.
Richard.
>
> r~
>