do not pass PR_INSTRUMENTEDCODE if there is no instrumentation
Tue Feb 26 18:24:00 GMT 2013
On 02/25/2013 02:52 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> I think it's best to do this here at tmmark time, instead of at IPA-tm.
> Don't we have problems when ipa inlining runs after ipa_tm, thus
> creating more instrumented code later on?
No, I shouldn't think so. Inlining doesn't change the decision we made during
IPA_TM about whether or not any one transaction doesGoIrr, which is the *only*
bit that's relevant to eliding the uninstrumented code path during IPA_TM, and
thus should be the only bit that's relevant to deciding that the sole code path
is actually supposed to be instrumented or uninstrumented.
I'm not fond of how much extra code and tests this patch is adding. Is it
really really required? Is my analysis above wrong in some way?
More information about the Gcc-patches