This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 2/5] completely_scalarize arrays as well as records
- From: Martin Jambor <mjambor at suse dot cz>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Alan Lawrence <alan dot lawrence at arm dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:30:26 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] completely_scalarize arrays as well as records
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1440500777-25966-1-git-send-email-alan dot lawrence at arm dot com> <1440500777-25966-3-git-send-email-alan dot lawrence at arm dot com> <20150825214232 dot GB12831 at virgil dot suse dot cz> <55DCE1A2 dot 7050501 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc3ZxgswHtbhn+sqx0xDyDvoiHJ1jeSfSzuARMhk-idmkw at mail dot gmail dot com>
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 09:07:33AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 08/25/2015 03:42 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:06:14PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This changes the completely_scalarize_record path to also work on arrays
> >>> (thus
> >>> allowing records containing arrays, etc.). This just required extending
> >>> the
> >>> existing type_consists_of_records_p and completely_scalarize_record
> >>> methods
> >>> to handle things of ARRAY_TYPE as well as RECORD_TYPE. Hence, I renamed
> >>> both
> >>> methods so as not to mention 'record'.
> >>
> >>
> >> thanks for working on this. I see Jeff has already approved the
> >> patch, but I have two comments nevertheless. First, I would be much
> >> happier if you added a proper comment to scalarize_elem function which
> >> you forgot completely. The name is not very descriptive and it has
> >> quite few parameters too.
> >
> > Right. I mentioned that I missed the lack of function comments when looking
> > at #3 and asked Alan to go back and fix them in #1 and #2.
> >
> >>
> >> Second, this patch should also fix PR 67283. It would be great if you
> >> could verify that and add it to the changelog when committing if that
> >> is indeed the case.
> >
> > Excellent. Yes, definitely mention the BZ.
>
> One extra question is does the way we limit total scalarization work well
> for arrays? I suppose we have either sth like the maximum size of an
> aggregate we scalarize or the maximum number of component accesses
> we create?
>
Only the former and that would be kept intact. It is in fact visible
in the context of the last hunk of the patch.
Martin