This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
RE: [Java PATCH] An attempt at removing a "Gross hack"
- From: "S. Bosscher" <S dot Bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- To: 'Jeff Sturm ' <jsturm at one-point dot com>,'Steven Bosscher ' <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: "'java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org '" <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"'gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org '" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"'aph at redhat dot com '" <aph at redhat dot com>, 'Zack Weinberg ' <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:06:24 +0200
- Subject: RE: [Java PATCH] An attempt at removing a "Gross hack"
Jeff Sturm wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2003, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > Zack suggested in a private conversation that setting TREE_ADDRESSABLE
> > should also force a function to be emitted.
>
> Ahh, that's a good tip. Out of curiousity, was there a failure in this
> code, or is this mainly a cleanup patch? (I'd guess that the decision
> to emit will be shifting away from rest_of_compilation, if it hasn't
> already.)
No failures, this is a cleanup that I thought we would we need to get rid of
flag_inline_trees. Zack and I had an almost identical patch for that,
introducing a langhook that tells the middle end if the language uses the
rtl inliner or the tree inliner. Both patches fail miserably with Java,
which apparently sometimes uses rtl inlining, and sometimes tree inlining.
I thought getting rid of this hack would help, but unfortunately it does
not. But it is a good cleanup anyway if this works.
Gr.
Steven