This is the mail archive of the 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: [PR58315] reset inlined debug vars at return-to point

On Feb 25, 2015, Jakub Jelinek <> wrote:

> various tools and users really want to
> be able to inspect variables and parameters on the return statement.

This patch won't affect the return statement.  The resets are at the
return-to statement; if you stop at the return statement (assuming you
have code generated for it in place), you should still get the same
bindings.  Now, if *all* the code for the return statement was optimized
away, and you stop at the subsequent instruction, that happens to be
past the return, then, yeah, you're out of luck, but then you were
already out of luck before.

Now, there is of course the case in which there is some code left in
place for the return stmt, but it is no longer in its natural position
in the code flow.  You stop there, you're technically out of the inline
scope, but now you're also past the "clobbering" of the inlined
variables.  The real solution for this is to implement the stmt
frontiers I presented at some GCC Summit, so that, when you stop at a
statement, you get the state you expect regardless of code motion,
because you get the state at the natural flow of control, even if node
actual code remained at that point.

> And another thing is the amount of the added debug stmts, right now we don't
> add debug stmts all the time for everything, just when something is needed,

We add debug stmts whenever a trackable (auto "gimple register")
variable is modified.  They are "clobbered" at the end of the inline
function they expanded out of, so this just corrects an long-standing
and quite expensive oversight.

You won't get debug stmts for unused inlined variables, for example: you
should only get them for variables that were remapped while inlining the
code to begin with.  If you got code for them and they are trackable,
you certainly got debug stmts for them as well.

> while your patch adds it unconditionally, even when debug stmts for those
> won't be really emitted.

It shouldn't.  Please show me?

> As they are just resets, that hopefully will not
> drastically affect var-tracking time

They will.  But in a positive way :-)

> but might affect other optimization passes, which would need to deal
> with much more statements than before.

It shouldn't be hard to test this hypothesis one way or another.  Tweak
the code that introduces the new debug temps so that they all refer to
the same fake variable, as opposed to resetting the intended variables,
and then you'll have an exact measure of the compile-time impact
*without* the savings afforded by the resets.  Then we can compare
whether it's an overall win or loss.

My measurements, for a not particularly unusual testcase, showed an
overall reduction of 63% in compile time, as indicated yesterday.  Now,
who should bear the burden of collecting evidence to back up the claims
against the change?  Are those concerns enough to hold it up?

Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! --   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

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