This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: proposal for compilation unil wide alias analyis
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Cc: Ken Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Stuart Hastings <stuart at apple dot com>, Geoff Keating <geoffk at apple dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>, Ron Price <ronp at apple dot com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:24:31 -0400
- Subject: Re: proposal for compilation unil wide alias analyis
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <40DB07B2.1090108@naturalbridge.com> <20040625220852.GA17010@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 18:08, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> However the mainline might be good as well as we already do have
> functions gimplified at the time cgraph_analize is called (ie when you
> would like to do the analysis).
>
Really? Then why do we call the gimplifier as one of the tree
optimization passes? That makes things easier then. But the bodies are
still in high GIMPLE, are they not? Meaning that they still have
nesting and scopes.
What would be Really Cool, though, is to have all the function bodies in
the call graph already in SSA form.
Now, when exactly is cgraph_analyze called? After we called t_r_o_c on
each function body? That'd be too late. We want to do this analysis
before we optimize the first body in the call graph.
> Also I was under impression that doing basic IPA alias analysis should
> be just question of hooking Daniel's points to analyzers into
> cgraph code
>
This would fix some of the low hanging fruit wrt IPA analysis. I don't
think the idea is to do a full context-sensitive analysis at first.
Diego.