This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Clear TREE_STATIC on vector ctors if needed (PR middle-end/70633)
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:05:09 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clear TREE_STATIC on vector ctors if needed (PR middle-end/70633)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160412194644 dot GG19207 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1604130939540 dot 13384 at t29 dot fhfr dot qr> <20160413075549 dot GK19207 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:50:29AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > But I wonder why expansion doesn't simply "re-compute" TREE_STATIC
> > here. That is, do we rely on TREE_STATIC constructors for correctness
> > purposes as set by frontends?
>
> Clearly we do rely on it. If we did not rely on it, would the flag be
> useful for anything?
Sure, if it is merely a hint that an optimization is possible. If so
we can compute it where we perform that optimization (if that's in
a single place).
Richard.