This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Handle new operators with no arguments in DCE.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:47 PM Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> PING^1
OK
> On 8/8/19 10:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > On 8/7/19 4:12 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:04 PM Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 8/7/19 12:51 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 12:44:28PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/7/19 11:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>>>> I think the simplest way to achieve this is to not copy, aka clear,
> >>>>>> DECL_IS_OPERATOR_* when cloning and removing arguments
> >>>>>> (cloning for a constant align argument should be OK for example, as is
> >>>>>> for a constant address). Or simply always when cloning.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ok, then I'm suggesting following tested patch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
> >>>>
> >>>> What about LAMBDA_FUNCTION, doesn't cloning which changes arguments in any
> >>>> way invalidate that too, i.e. shouldn't it be just
> >>>> FUNCTION_DECL_DECL_TYPE (new_node->decl) = NONE;
> >>>
> >>> Well, how are lambdas involved in the new/delete DCE here? Lambdas with removed
> >>> arguments should not interfere here.
> >>
> >> But for coverage where we do
> >>
> >> gcov_write_unsigned (DECL_ARTIFICIAL (current_function_decl)
> >> && !DECL_FUNCTION_VERSIONED (current_function_decl)
> >> && !DECL_LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (current_function_decl));
> >>
> >> all clones should be considered artificial?
> >
> > Well, from coverage perspective most of them are fine.
> >
> >>
> >> Anyway, your patch is OK, we can think about lambdas separately. Can you
> >> simplify the DCE code after the patch?
> >
> > I installed the patch and I'm sending the follow up cleanup.
> >
> > Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
> >
> > Ready to be installed?
> > Thanks,
> > Martin
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Richard.
> >>
> >>>> instead? On the other side, if the cloning doesn't change arguments in any
> >>>> way, do we still want to clear those flags?
> >>>
> >>> Well, I would consider it safer to drop it always.
> >>>
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Jakub
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>