This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] TREE_ADDRESSABLE versus ARRAY_TYPE
> On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 20:55, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Does this seem to make sense?
> > Bootstrapped/regtested i686-pc-gnu
> > Hope I didn't messed up something obvious
> Thanks Jan. The patch is fine and fixes PR11761. I made a couple of
> minor adjustments and checked it in. It provides some slight code size
> improvements and identical compile times.
> I would like us to address the wrinkle wrt TREE_ADDRESSABLE and arrays
> referenced with non-constant indices. Perhaps we should have a
> different bitflag to avoid confusing the RTL expanders. That would
> allow us to remove the call to discover_nonconstant_array_refs.
You can see the original patch implementing the flag. Once we will find
a need to for sich a fine difference, I think I can just rescuesce it.
> + /* Mark arrays indexed with non-constant indices with TREE_ADDRESSABLE.
> + FIXME: Is this really needed long-term? This is done for the benefit
> + of the RTL expanders. */
> + discover_nonconstant_array_refs ();
Yes, I don't see any reason teaching RTL expanders to maintain real
arrays (used with nonconstant indices) in registers.