From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26407 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2007 11:45:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 26398 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Aug 2007 11:45:50 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate8.de.ibm.com (HELO mtagate8.de.ibm.com) (195.212.29.157) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:45:47 +0000 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate8.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l77BjiPU026776 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:45:44 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.4) with ESMTP id l77BjicQ2310398 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:45:44 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l77Bjfb0014656 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:45:41 +0200 Received: from blc4eb430604175.ibm.com (dyn-9-152-216-52.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.216.52]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id l77Bjeir014652; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:45:40 +0200 Received: by blc4eb430604175.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:44:38 +0200 Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:45:00 -0000 From: Andreas Krebbel To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] Provide get_attr functions with alternative parameter Message-ID: <20070807114438.GA19245@blc4eb430604175.ibm.com> References: <20070806152927.GA3999@blc4eb430604175.ibm.com> <46B7428E.5070902@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46B7428E.5070902@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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 X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00420.txt.bz2 Hello, > Interesting! Is there a reason (in the patch you're working on) why the > inline wrappers couldn't just do > > extract_constrain_insn_cached (insn); > return get_alt_attr_blah_blah (insn, which_alternative); > > instead of supporting the special alternative number -1 in > get_alt_attr_blah_blah? (I can see the reason could be code bloat, or > GCC deciding not to inline get_attr_blah_blah, but I thought I'd just ask). Good question. The current code emitted by genattrtab only invokes extract_constrain_insn if the value of the alternative really depends on the number of the alternative. So for several attributes it might not get invoked at all. I was just trying to leave that behaviour as is in order to avoid performance regressions. It is not required by the patch I'm working on. Bye, -Andreas-