This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ RFC] Re: PR 10776
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 12 Jan 2004 11:35:03 -0800
- Subject: Re: [C++ RFC] Re: PR 10776
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <20040110181229.GP1964@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20040111013613.A8677@redhat.com>
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 01:36, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 07:12:29PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > the testcase in PR 10776 contains insanely large initializer that
> > results in insanely large basic blocks containing many memory locations
> > and CSElib just explodes in invalidating memory location after each
> > store.
> While your two patches are still moderately interesting from the point
> of view of sanely handling extremely large basic blocks, it sort of
> misses the point that we're doing something insanely stupid here with
> the initialization of this object.
> The following patch splits the initialization into compile-time and
> run-time pieces. For this test, all but one store can be done at
I thought that was not a valid transformation, but it turns out that it
is. I'd thought of doing this, but was never convinced it was allowed.
split_nonconstant_init and the _1 variant need comments for each of
If this patch passes tests, it is OK.
Mark Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org>