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: trans-mem: virtual ops for gimple_transaction


On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Richard Henderson wrote:

> 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.

Ah, I see.  But wouldn't a placeholder builtin function be
effectively the same as using a new GIMPLE stmt kind?

Richard.


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