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: [PR51752] publication safety violations in loop invariant motion pass


On 02/27/12 08:22, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> transform by making transaction load/store stmts behave the same as
>> potentially trapping stmts (thus, only optimize if the memory is accessed
>> unconditional somewhere else).  That would work for PRE as well.
>> [easiest would be to make *_could_trap_p return true for memory ops
>> inside a transaction]
> 
> Provided the gimple bit works, this seems reasonable, though quite a big hammer.  But given that we are nearing a release, I would be in favor of it.
> 
> Richard Henderson, what do you think?

Well, hooking could_trap_p sounds like an easy solution.

Gimple bits, on the other hand, are not.  Keeping those up-to-date is
always a real pain.  We have had several gimple bits in the history of
the TM code, and we've gotten rid of them all because they were too
invasive to maintain.

OTOH, I have no better suggestion...

r~


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