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: VTA merge - ssa (gimple, trees, tuples)


On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Alexandre Oliva<aoliva@redhat.com> wrote
> ssa (55K) - introduce debug bind stmts in the tree and tuples level

Having a look at this patch I see numerous things:

 - IS_DEBUG_STMT should be a gimple_debug_p or is_gimple_debug
   inline function in gimple.h.  In fact, all of the macros that operate on
   gimple should be inline functions and in gimple.h.  They also need
   documentation in gimple.texi (maybe that follows, I'm not that far yet).

 - all the adjustment needed for keeping definitions of debug-uses
   dominating the debug-stmts after code motion have probelems
   * they require up-to-date dominators
   * they look just ugly
   why not allow non-dominating definitions for debug-stmts (thus,
   adjust the verifier) and have a cleanup pass (like we have
   TODO_remove_unused_locals or cfgcleanup) to rip them out?
   That would reduce the complexity of the fixup as well.

 - I don't see the point of var_debug_value_for_decl, or rather its
   complicatedness.  We should always have a DECL_NAME for
   !DECL_ARTIFICIAL.  Why look up abstract origins?  Why
   test MAY_HAVE_DEBUG_STMTS so late?  Why does
   MAY_HAVE_DEBUG_STMTS exist at all - you should just
   test flag_var_tracking (or as I suggested elsewhere enable
   debug stmts unconditionally in the end).

...

Richard.


>
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter ? ?http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
> You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
> Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ ? FSF Latin America board member
> Free Software Evangelist ? ? ?Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer
>
>


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