This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: trans-mem: virtual ops for gimple_transaction
- From: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:35:34 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: trans-mem: virtual ops for gimple_transaction
- References: <bug-51752-119-dJucciRs1z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> <4F345153.firstname.lastname@example.org> <alpine.LNX.email@example.com> <4F3559AA.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 01:44 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > What is the reason to keep a GIMPLE_TRANSACTION stmt after
> > TM lowering and not lower it to a builtin function call?
> Because "real" optimization hasn't happened yet, and we hold
> out hope that we'll be able to delete stuff as unreachable.
> Especially all instances of transaction_cancel.
> > It seems the body is empty after lowering (what's the label thing?)
> The label is the transaction cancel label.
> When we finally convert GIMPLE_TRANSACTION a builtin, we'll
> generate different code layouts with and without a cancel.
Ah, I see. But wouldn't a placeholder builtin function be
effectively the same as using a new GIMPLE stmt kind?