This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Tree sharing issues...
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:44:13 -0700
- Subject: Re: Tree sharing issues...
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <20031119233018.GY11681@kam.mff.cuni.cz>, Jan Hubicka writes:
>> In message <20031119231730.GV11681@kam.mff.cuni.cz>, Jan Hubicka writes:
>> >This is my current status:
>> >/* Return true when the T can be shared. */
>> >static bool
>> >tree_node_shared_p (tree t)
>> >{
>> > if (TYPE_P (t) || DECL_P (t)
>> > || is_gimple_min_invariant (t)
>> > || TREE_CODE (t) == SSA_NAME)
>> > return true;
>> > return false;
>> >}
>> >It pretty much match what you are mentioning.
>> It's a start. I'm sure we're going to find more stuff.
>>
>> >The array reference above is other stuff. If you think it makes
>> >sense, I will add check for ARRAY_REF with all operands passing
>> >is_gimple_min_invariant. DOes that sound plausible?
>> I'm simply not sure.
>>
>> >Or do we want to fix jump threading?
>> I don't see how jump threading could be creating this. It doesn't
>> muck around with statements in that manner.
>Apparently it is result of re-renaming.
renaming wouldn't touch that kind of expression either (storing into
an array at a constant position).
jeff