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] |
On 07/21/2016 03:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Seems reasonable. I'm not sure were best to put the late call either; it's a balancing act many passes have opportunities to simplify stuff in ways that may make a false positive go away, but many passes can also muck up the range information that you're likely depending on.The pass only runs once. Without optimization, it's invoked early, does its thing, and is never invoked again. With optimization, it's also invoked early but returns without doing anything, only to to invoked again much later on to do real work. I wasn't sure where among all the passes might be the best spot to insert it so I put in the same place as Aldy's -Walloca patch because it relies on the same prior passes.
I'd say stick with its current position in the pipeline, then we should reevaluate after some of the range reimplementation lands.
jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |