public inbox for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>, "gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Target dependence of conditional expression gimplification
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 08:24:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53689C53.2050603@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5367B81F.9020401@redhat.com>

On 05/05/2014 06:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:

> Yes, this is a known issue.  There's places where the costing models
> change the gimple we initially generate and what transformations we
> apply later.

Well, "known issue" is very subjective.  Our developers run into this 
quite regularly because you get more -Wstrict-overflow warnings on ppc64 
and s390x than on x86_64.  The GIMPLE on x86_64 contains fewer 
conditional statements, so the warning does not fire.

> Long term we want to push this stuff to a later point in the pipeline,
> but there's some disagreement over exactly how/when to do that.

Would it be feasible (for someone like me who is not really familiar 
with GCC internals) to move the BRANCH_COST-dependent bits of fold to an 
early GIMPLE pass?  There's another target dependence related to 
function pointers which could receive similar treatment.

This wouldn't help with the -Wstrict-overflow issue that prompted my 
original message, but it would benefit warnings and other analyses 
performed on early not-fully-optimized GIMPLE.

-- 
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team

  reply	other threads:[~2014-05-06  8:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-03 12:04 Florian Weimer
2014-05-05 15:05 ` Florian Weimer
2014-05-05 16:01   ` Manuel López-Ibáñez
2014-05-05 16:11   ` Jeff Law
2014-05-06  8:24     ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2014-05-06 12:16       ` Jeff Law

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=53689C53.2050603@redhat.com \
    --to=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=law@redhat.com \
    /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: link
Be 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).