This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: trans-mem: virtual ops for gimple_transaction
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:53:46 -0800
- Subject: Re: trans-mem: virtual ops for gimple_transaction
- References: <bug-51752-119-dJucciRs1z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> <4F345153.firstname.lastname@example.org> <alpine.LNX.email@example.com>
On 02/10/2012 01:44 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> What is the reason to keep a GIMPLE_TRANSACTION stmt after
> TM lowering and not lower it to a builtin function call?
Because "real" optimization hasn't happened yet, and we hold
out hope that we'll be able to delete stuff as unreachable.
Especially all instances of transaction_cancel.
> It seems the body is empty after lowering (what's the label thing?)
The label is the transaction cancel label.
When we finally convert GIMPLE_TRANSACTION a builtin, we'll
generate different code layouts with and without a cancel.