From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 103793 invoked by alias); 17 May 2016 08:06:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 103713 invoked by uid 89); 17 May 2016 08:06:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=HContent-Transfer-Encoding:7Bit X-HELO: smtp.eu.adacore.com Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO smtp.eu.adacore.com) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 17 May 2016 08:06:02 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7633812F9; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:05:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.eu.adacore.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cV2pyx5zh2NK; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:05:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from polaris.localnet (bon31-6-88-161-99-133.fbx.proxad.net [88.161.99.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7753812F4; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:05:57 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] function: Do the CLEANUP_EXPENSIVE after shrink-wrapping, not before Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 08:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1831730.xXXSthoG5j@polaris> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/3.16.7-35-desktop; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <213485283eede9da12b217737d95fc8f5c4be442.1463428211.git.segher@kernel.crashing.org> References: <213485283eede9da12b217737d95fc8f5c4be442.1463428211.git.segher@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg01172.txt.bz2 > We should do CLEANUP_EXPENSIVE after shrink-wrapping, because shrink- > wrapping creates constructs that CLEANUP_EXPENSIVE can optimise, and > nothing runs CLEANUP_EXPENSIVE later. We don't need cleanup_cfg before > shrink-wrapping, nothing in shrink-wrapping (or the other *logue insertion > code) cares at all. Are you sure of that? I agree that CLEANUP_EXPENSIVE might be overkill, but can't cleanup_cfg expose more opportunities to have multiple epilogues? -- Eric Botcazou