This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 0/9] separate shrink-wrapping
- From: Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- Cc: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, dje dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 09:35:13 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] separate shrink-wrapping
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <cover.1465347472.git.segher@kernel.crashing.org> <a576ff9b-a3c7-d4c6-cba7-73edc07fd428@redhat.com> <20160608151645.GA13163@gate.crashing.org> <d0f1b73b-cfb6-da32-a0c4-f1ccab0578df@redhat.com> <20160614212411.GB13674@gate.crashing.org> <cefa915d-4f13-cda5-797e-cd5fa00c1487@redhat.com> <20160708121102.GC12770@gate.crashing.org> <1467983763.18068.101.camel@redhat.com> <20160708134531.GD12770@gate.crashing.org>
Not that getting the terminology right isn't important, but it would be
nice if Segher could get a review for the rest of the content, too. :)
Bill
> On Jul 8, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:16:03AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>> As far as I understand the idea, there are a number of target-specific
>> things that are to be done during a function call, and the optimization
>> tries to detect which of optimize each of these separately.
>>
>> Some synonyms and near-synonyms for these "things":
>>
>> aspect
>> component
>> concern
>> duty
>> element
>> facet
>> factor
>> item
>> part
>> piece
>> portion
>> responsibility
>>
>> and I suppose "shrink_wrap_part" is shorter than
>> "shrink_wrap_component".
>
> The reason I called it "concern" is that this isn't dealing with the
> prologue/epilogue divided neatly into separate insns. The generic code
> only deals with what basic blocks will have what concerns the prologue
> deals with, dealt with. The target code then worries about what code
> to write for that. "concerns" does not map 1-1 to parts of the prologue,
> in the general case. (A very simple example: the arm load/store pair
> instructions).
>
> But component is abstract enough I think.
>
>> (Yeah, I'm bike-shedding; sorry)
>
> :-)
>
>
> Segher
>