public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "mikael at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/44978] derived types are resolved more than once Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:34:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-44978-4-8ipSZE3BhO@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-44978-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978 --- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to janus from comment #13) > > > Well, the advantage of my original patch is obviously that it not only > > > avoids the double errors, but it also prevents us from doing double the work > > > in resolving the symbols, so it might even give a performance improvement > > > for large codes, in particular with heavy OOP (not sure if it's anywhere > > > close to being significant, though). > > > > All right, the only one solution left that I see is the one making the > > functions void. See the attached patch (comments welcome). > > I ran the testsuite partially on it and it was clean, but I don't have the > > time to finish that right now. It looked as slow as usual by the way. ;-) > > Your patch does not compile cleanly, but after a small fix to make it > compile, the testsuite runs through successfully. Uh? My trunk is a few weeks old. I guess that's the reason. > However, I don't quite see the point of doing this: Doesn't a void return > value have basically the same effect as returning true? (i.e. to "keep > going", whereas returning false means to "back out", since there was a > problem) > The point is: if the return value is not reliable, let's remove it. The void is indeed the same as returning true ("keep going"). I think it's better to "always keep going" rather than "keep going because the function was already called, even if it returned 'back out' the first time". > Therefore I don't really see the improvement here. To the contrary: I would > rather say we should propagate the return values as far as possible (one > case where it is currently not propagated is resolve_symbol). This alone > might even get rid of the double errors (if one pulls it through fully), but > again it does not really help with double resolution in the non-error case, > so I'd say we still need to rely on sym->resolved. > OK, let's use more bool; but then the return value shall be consistent across multiple calls. So I would say use two bits for each function: one telling whether the function was already called on the symbol, and one telling the return value. There are three functions as far as I know (resolve_symbol, resolve_fl_derived and resolve_fl_derived0) which makes six bits. Even if you are concerned about wasted memory, that doesn't consume extra memory because of fields alignments. (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #10) > > Or can > > you give an example where it would create a problem? > > No, it was more a general design comment. I will try to find one. I couldn't find one; but my opinion remains the same. I think it's bad design to return different values across repeated calls.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-11 11:34 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <bug-44978-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> 2013-04-13 11:15 ` [Bug fortran/44978] extended " janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-06-15 11:12 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-08-08 20:00 ` [Bug fortran/44978] " janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-08-08 21:24 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-08-09 6:00 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-08-09 13:37 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-08-09 13:59 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-08-09 15:03 ` mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-08-09 19:23 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-08-09 19:55 ` mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-08-10 7:55 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-08-11 8:54 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-08-11 11:34 ` mikael at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2013-08-11 17:22 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-08-11 19:12 ` mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-08-13 9:38 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-08-13 9:40 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-08-13 9:54 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-08-13 14:14 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2015-01-15 18:44 ` janus at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-44978-4-8ipSZE3BhO@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).