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: [patch] ree.c: don't abuse GTY

From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:57:56 +0100
Subject: Re: [patch] ree.c: don't abuse GTY
References: <CABu31nO20-qqcMU68LihzsSC+cXs7n=ppkB6RgAZVn4gwuONBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc0tyMpRDQ196X7BTVicZNY1yP7x7HsmJRmqkqnWb8Uf2w@mail.gmail.com> <CABu31nMMe9jzKPXNcYKJCOt4oemmROm6EOiTbrx6RrPN4nooxw@mail.gmail.com> <CABu31nM_V2FCQT_OxtVuuvJFEFF6hF8fzZT9J-a2DqwA370LJg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 10:51:39AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > In the mean time -- comments on my patch?
> 
> Oh, never mind, I forgot I was going to commit this as obvious :-)

I'd say removing the GTY(()) on a struct that is never GC allocated
nor interesting to PCH is obvious, the removal of TODO_ggc_collect is not
so.  Right now it is set by passes that expect to potentially
create enough GC garbage that a collection might be desirable.
You haven't explained why you think it is the case of ree.c.

	Jakub

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] ree.c: don't abuse GTY
  - From: Steven Bosscher

References:
- [patch] ree.c: don't abuse GTY
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: [patch] ree.c: don't abuse GTY
  - From: Richard Biener
- Re: [patch] ree.c: don't abuse GTY
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: [patch] ree.c: don't abuse GTY
  - From: Steven Bosscher

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