This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: [lto] PATCH: fill in code to merge declarations

From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: "Kenneth Zadeck" <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>, "Sandra Loosemore" <sandra at codesourcery dot com>, "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:17:17 -0400
Subject: Re: [lto] PATCH: fill in code to merge declarations
References: <450AF400.2070004@codesourcery.com> <450AFED2.5040906@codesourcery.com> <450B3307.1080602@naturalbridge.com> <450B3872.6090601@codesourcery.com>

But, I'm not sure why re-gimplification is a problem, per se.  GIMPLE is
presumably already valid GIMPLE, so the gimplifier should presumably
leave it intact.  Are you just concerned about the wasted time, or do is
there a correctness problem with re-gimplifying?


There is no correctness problem for the near term goal you are trying
to achieve (inlining one simple function into another).
There is certainly a correctness problem on more complex code (EH will
fail miserably, etc).

Of course, as a long term strategy, regimplifying is a bad idea, which
i'm sure you know, blah blah blah

--Dan

References:
- [lto] PATCH: fill in code to merge declarations
  - From: Sandra Loosemore
- Re: [lto] PATCH: fill in code to merge declarations
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: [lto] PATCH: fill in code to merge declarations
  - From: Kenneth Zadeck
- Re: [lto] PATCH: fill in code to merge declarations
  - From: Mark Mitchell

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