From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, PR 45934 1/6] [PR 46287] Do not generate direct calls to thunks
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:39:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101214171405.GD26788@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101203130049.GA3371@virgil.arch.suse.de>
> Hi,
>
> > I guess it is still fine as it is definite improvement over current
> > situation, but won't we need to handle all of cgraph_thunk_info
> > here?
>
> Eventually we will, certainly before we start propagating constants to
> zeroth arguments of OBJ_TYPE_REFs. And not only here but also at
I tought we do that via constant folding already.
> other places (e.g. cgraph_set_call_stmt and company... and of course
> there is the weird cgraph_create_edge_including_clones I wrote you
> about earlier).
Hmm...
>
> > In thunk_info it is HOST_WIDE_INT, I would expect it to be here as well.
>
> I extract it from BINFOs as tree constants and I need to use it in
> POINTER_PLUSes as tree constants so there is probably no point in
> striing it as H_W_I.
Well, it is similar for the thunk code. In a way I preffer constants to be constants
as they are easier to handle in GGC/LTO etc. but I do not care too much.
> > Should've test here if this parameter was eliminated or not?
> > (i.e. first bit of e->callee->clone.combined_args_to_skip?
>
> It is not strictly necessary because I do the callee modification
> before removing parameters but on the second thought, yes, we should
> avoid creating unnecessary stuff when it is this easy. So I will add
> the check and the condition will be:
>
> if (e->indirect_info && e->indirect_info->thunk_delta
> && integer_nonzerop (e->indirect_info->thunk_delta)
> && (!e->callee->clone.combined_args_to_skip
> || !bitmap_bit_p (e->callee->clone.combined_args_to_skip, 0)))
OK...
>
> >
> > > Index: icln/gcc/ipa-prop.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- icln.orig/gcc/ipa-prop.c
> > > +++ icln/gcc/ipa-prop.c
> >
> > I would expect somewhere here to be code handling updating of operand
> > value for non-0 delta when doing ipa-cp propagation, but don't seem to
> > be able to find it?
>
> What do you mean? IPA-CP stores the delta into the indirect info
> structure of the corresponding edge and then the code in
> gimple_adjust_this_by_delta performs the adjustment.
Will then IPA-CP handle correctly call to thunk that calls to real function
that just passes pointer to other function?
>
> >
> > The rest seems OK. I am most concerned that we implement just part of thunk
> > logic, but I see that you get deltas from BINFOs and the rest of adjustments
> > are not there?
> >
>
> Correct, for simple this adjusting thunks, BINFOs contain the decl of
> the real function and the this delta separately, for more complex
> thunks it stores the decl of an underlying thunk + a this delta which
> would otherwise be adjusted in this thunk.
>
> And yes, we will certainly have to re-think how to represent thunks in
> the cgraph in a more general way.
>
> Anyway, is the patch OK with the above change then?
OK.
Honza
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-14 17:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-01 20:22 [PATCH, PR 45934 0/6] Devirtualization aware of dynamic type changes Martin Jambor
2010-12-01 20:22 ` [PATCH, PR 45934 3/6] More robust compute_complex_ancestor_jump_func Martin Jambor
2010-12-01 20:28 ` Richard Guenther
2010-12-01 20:23 ` [PATCH, PR 45934 2/6] Remove devirtualizations that cannot be done Martin Jambor
2010-12-01 20:35 ` Richard Guenther
2010-12-02 10:46 ` Martin Jambor
2010-12-02 12:14 ` Richard Guenther
2010-12-01 20:23 ` [PATCH, PR 45934 5/6] Identify the new dynamic type after change Martin Jambor
2010-12-01 20:23 ` [PATCH, PR 45934 1/6] [PR 46287] Do not generate direct calls to thunks Martin Jambor
2010-12-01 20:58 ` Jan Hubicka
2010-12-03 13:01 ` Martin Jambor
2010-12-14 17:39 ` Jan Hubicka [this message]
2010-12-15 15:15 ` Martin Jambor
2010-12-15 15:46 ` Jan Hubicka
2010-12-15 16:52 ` Martin Jambor
2010-12-17 14:14 ` H.J. Lu
2010-12-01 20:23 ` [PATCH, PR 45934 6/6] Intraprocedural type-based devirtualization Martin Jambor
2010-12-02 15:40 ` Richard Guenther
2010-12-01 20:23 ` [PATCH, PR 45934 4/6] Dynamic type change detection Martin Jambor
2010-12-02 15:19 ` Richard Guenther
2010-12-02 16:17 ` Richard Guenther
2010-12-09 11:30 ` Martin Jambor
2010-12-02 23:25 ` Jason Merrill
2010-12-03 13:45 ` Martin Jambor
2010-12-03 14:34 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2010-12-03 16:07 ` Jason Merrill
2010-12-03 16:09 ` Richard Guenther
2010-12-03 16:21 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2010-12-04 23:14 ` Jason Merrill
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=20101214171405.GD26788@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
--to=hubicka@ucw.cz \
--cc=gcc-patches@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: 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).