This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 4/4] Convert lto streamer out hashing to inchash
- From: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Andi Kleen <ak at linux dot intel dot com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:40:56 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Convert lto streamer out hashing to inchash
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1405488709-12677-1-git-send-email-andi at firstfloor dot org> <1405488709-12677-2-git-send-email-andi at firstfloor dot org> <1405488709-12677-3-git-send-email-andi at firstfloor dot org> <1405488709-12677-4-git-send-email-andi at firstfloor dot org> <1405488709-12677-5-git-send-email-andi at firstfloor dot org> <53CF2E9F dot 9010103 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc0KU3Jgwp2ZgxOaChB0jja0f=+U1G73N0r7M0FBZhRcQw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 04:21:59PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 07/15/14 23:31, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> >>
> >> No substantial changes, although the hash values will be slightly
> >> different.
> >>
> >> gcc/:
> >>
> >> 2014-07-10 Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> >>
> >> * lto-streamer-out.c (hash_tree): Convert to inchash.
> >> (add_flag): New macro.
> >
> > So my question here, does this make any existing LTO objects no longer
> > usable? If so, what, if any policy do we have when we make that kind of
> > change?
> >
> > If existing LTO objects continue to work, then this patch is fine too once
> > the explicit begin/end vs ctor/dtor stuff is fixed.
>
> I'd say add_flag should be in the hash abstraction? You convert
> only some to hash_flag and not all of them - why?
I'll do all.
> For example
> I don't like your handling of TYPE/DECL_MODE. Please refrain
> from doing semantical changes like that and call it a simple
> refactoring.
Ok. I'll drop it.
Is it ok with those changes?
-Andi