From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23678 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2014 14:20:25 -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 23650 invoked by uid 89); 21 Oct 2014 14:20:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:20:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9LEKKZ2000532 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:20:20 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-116.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.116]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9LEKIZX011866 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:20:19 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s9LEKGoR015669; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:20:17 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id s9LEKFEA015656; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:20:15 +0200 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:21:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Kirill Yukhin Cc: Uros Bizjak , Richard Henderson , GCC Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH i386 AVX512] [81/n] Add new built-ins. Message-ID: <20141021142015.GY10376@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20141020134122.GB12661@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <20141020135019.GP10376@tucnak.redhat.com> <20141021140805.GA22695@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141021140805.GA22695@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg02085.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 06:08:15PM +0400, Kirill Yukhin wrote: > --- a/gcc/tree.h > +++ b/gcc/tree.h > @@ -2334,6 +2334,10 @@ extern void decl_value_expr_insert (tree, tree); > #define DECL_COMDAT(NODE) \ > (DECL_WITH_VIS_CHECK (NODE)->decl_with_vis.comdat_flag) > > + /* In a FUNCTION_DECL indicates that a static chain is needed. */ > +#define DECL_STATIC_CHAIN(NODE) \ > + (DECL_WITH_VIS_CHECK (NODE)->decl_with_vis.regdecl_flag) > + I would say that you should still keep it together with the FUNCTION_DECL macros and use FUNCTION_DECL_CHECK there, to make it clear we don't want the macro to be used on VAR_DECLs etc. So just s/function_decl/decl_with_vis/ in the definition IMHO. Also, with so many added builtins, how does it affect int i; compilation time at -O0? If it is significant, maybe it is highest time to make the md builtin decl building more lazy. Jakub