This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 0/9] separate shrink-wrapping

From: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt at redhat dot com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: dje dot gcc at gmail dot com
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:55:55 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] separate shrink-wrapping
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <cover dot 1465347472 dot git dot segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>

On 06/08/2016 03:47 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

This patch series introduces separate shrink-wrapping.

[...]

The next six patches are to prevent later passes from mishandling the
epilogue instructions that now appear before the epilogue: mostly, you
cannot do much to instructions with a REG_CFA_RESTORE note without
confusing dwarf2cfi.  The cprop one is for prologue instructions.

I'll need a while to sort out my thoughts about this. On the whole Ilike having the ability to do this, but I'm worried about the fragilityit introduces in passes after shrink-wrapping. Ideally we'd need an ix86implementation for test coverage reasons.

Is the usage of the word "concern" here standard for this kind of thing?It seems odd somehow but maybe that's just me.



Bernd

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 0/9] separate shrink-wrapping
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: [PATCH 0/9] separate shrink-wrapping
  - From: Segher Boessenkool

References:
- [PATCH 0/9] separate shrink-wrapping
  - From: Segher Boessenkool

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]