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: [PATCH 0/9] separate shrink-wrapping

Not that getting the terminology right isn't important, but it would be
nice if Segher could get a review for the rest of the content, too. :)


> On Jul 8, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Segher Boessenkool <> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:16:03AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>> As far as I understand the idea, there are a number of target-specific
>> things that are to be done during a function call, and the optimization
>> tries to detect which of optimize each of these separately.
>> Some synonyms and near-synonyms for these "things":
>>  aspect
>>  component
>>  concern
>>  duty
>>  element
>>  facet
>>  factor
>>  item
>>  part
>>  piece
>>  portion
>>  responsibility
>> and I suppose "shrink_wrap_part" is shorter than
>> "shrink_wrap_component".
> The reason I called it "concern" is that this isn't dealing with the
> prologue/epilogue divided neatly into separate insns.  The generic code
> only deals with what basic blocks will have what concerns the prologue
> deals with, dealt with.  The target code then worries about what code
> to write for that.  "concerns" does not map 1-1 to parts of the prologue,
> in the general case.  (A very simple example: the arm load/store pair
> instructions).
> But component is abstract enough I think.
>> (Yeah, I'm bike-shedding; sorry)
> :-)
> Segher

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