This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 2/5] completely_scalarize arrays as well as records
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Alan Lawrence <alan dot lawrence at arm dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:07:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] completely_scalarize arrays as well as records
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1440500777-25966-1-git-send-email-alan dot lawrence at arm dot com> <1440500777-25966-3-git-send-email-alan dot lawrence at arm dot com> <20150825214232 dot GB12831 at virgil dot suse dot cz> <55DCE1A2 dot 7050501 at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/25/2015 03:42 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:06:14PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>> This changes the completely_scalarize_record path to also work on arrays
>>> (thus
>>> allowing records containing arrays, etc.). This just required extending
>>> the
>>> existing type_consists_of_records_p and completely_scalarize_record
>>> methods
>>> to handle things of ARRAY_TYPE as well as RECORD_TYPE. Hence, I renamed
>>> both
>>> methods so as not to mention 'record'.
>>
>>
>> thanks for working on this. I see Jeff has already approved the
>> patch, but I have two comments nevertheless. First, I would be much
>> happier if you added a proper comment to scalarize_elem function which
>> you forgot completely. The name is not very descriptive and it has
>> quite few parameters too.
>
> Right. I mentioned that I missed the lack of function comments when looking
> at #3 and asked Alan to go back and fix them in #1 and #2.
>
>>
>> Second, this patch should also fix PR 67283. It would be great if you
>> could verify that and add it to the changelog when committing if that
>> is indeed the case.
>
> Excellent. Yes, definitely mention the BZ.
One extra question is does the way we limit total scalarization work well
for arrays? I suppose we have either sth like the maximum size of an
aggregate we scalarize or the maximum number of component accesses
we create?
Thanks,
Richard.
> jeff
>