This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: no_new_pseudos
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: iant at google dot com
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, aoliva at redhat dot com, bonzini at gnu dot org, dave dot korn at artimi dot com, dje at watson dot ibm dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, pinskia at gmail dot com, rsandifo at nildram dot co dot uk, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com, zadeck at naturalbridge dot com
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:28:56 EDT
- Subject: Re: no_new_pseudos
- References: <46892386.9080103@naturalbridge.com> <m3ejjl8lqg.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <orr6njqs6o.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <m3sl7y3n63.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <or3azyquay.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <m3odim2kxc.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <orhcodol6o.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <10707091208.AA07438@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <469238A9.9010109@naturalbridge.com> <ormyy5lihr.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <de8d50360707090837w198a14dam2fa37fc2bdbc3e87@mail.gmail.com> <469257D6.4030605@gnu.org> <m3fy3x35g1.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
> We've moved past that option, now we're arguing about using
> regalloc_started_p ().
I'm against that. Why are we hardwiring that as the point at which no new
pseudos can be created? It seems right for now, but suppose we later have
some mechanism for doing regalloc "on the fly"?
If you want to know whether you can safely allocate pseudos at a certain point
in time, it would seem to me to be most straightforward to do so by
interrogating something like "can_allocate_pseudos_now_p".