Re: [PATCH] Set current_function_decl in {push,pop}_cfun and push_struct_function

[Martin Jambor <mjambor at suse dot cz>]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 05:21:04PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 04:57:41PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > - ada/gcc-interface/utils.c:rest_of_subprog_body_compilation calls
> > >   dump_function which in turns calls dump_function_to_file which calls
> > >   push_cfun.  But Ada front end has its idea of the
> > >   current_function_decl and there is no cfun which is an inconsistency
> > >   which makes push_cfun assert fail.  I "solved" it by temporarily
> > >   setting current_function_decl to NULL_TREE.  It's just dumping and I
> > >   thought that dump_function should be considered middle-end and thus
> > >   middle-end invariants should apply.
> > 
> > If you think that calling dump_function from rest_of_subprog_body_compilation 
> > is a layering violation, I don't have a problem with replacing it with a more 
> > "manual" scheme like the one in c-family/c-gimplify.c:c_genericize, provided 
> > that this yields roughly the same output.
> 
> Richi suggested on IRC that I remove the push/pop_cfun calls from
> dump_function_to_file.  The only problem seems to be
> dump_histograms_for_stmt

Yesterday I actually tried and it is not the only problem.  Another
one is dump_function_to_file->dump_bb->maybe_hot_bb_p which uses cfun
to read profile_status.  There may be others, this one just blew up
first when I set cfun to NULL.  And in future someone is quite likely
to need cfun to dump something new too.

At the same time, re-implementing dumping
c-family/c-gimplify.c:c_genericize when dump_function suffices seems
ugly to me.

So I am going to declare dump_function a front-end interface and use
set_cfun in my original patch in dump_function_to_file like we do in
other such functions.

I hope that will be OK.  Thanks,

Martin

PS: Each of various alternatives proposed in this thread had someone
who opposed it.  If there is a consensus that some of them should be
implemented anyway (like global value profiling hash), I am willing to
do that, I just do not want to end up bickering about the result.