From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-474346-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 92289 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2018 20:48:31 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 87903 invoked by uid 89); 6 Mar 2018 20:48:18 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
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 ESMTP; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 20:48:16 +0000
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16])	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))	(No client certificate requested)	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A732C81DE9	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue,  6 Mar 2018 20:48:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.40.205.164])	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A80045C257;	Tue,  6 Mar 2018 20:48:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 20:48:00 -0000
From: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: C++ PATCH for c++/84684, wrong caching when evaluating a constexpr function
Message-ID: <20180306204808.GF7043@redhat.com>
References: <20180306181342.GE7043@redhat.com> <CADzB+2=ikvff6SXOM7agNxOBGMdSjq9D7M5LtWj7k+hjxxs6Bw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADzB+2=ikvff6SXOM7agNxOBGMdSjq9D7M5LtWj7k+hjxxs6Bw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
X-SW-Source: 2018-03/txt/msg00282.txt.bz2

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 03:39:36PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> wrote:
> > But I'm also wondering about massage_init_elt.  It has
> >   tree t = fold_non_dependent_expr (init);
> >   t = maybe_constant_init (t);
> > but given that fold_non_dependent_expr now calls maybe_constant_value, which
> > then causes that we try to cache the calls above, this seems excessive,
> > wouldn't we be better off with just calling fold_non_dependent_init as
> > discussed recently?
> 
> Probably.

Do you want me to try it for GCC 8 or should we table it for GCC 9?
I would think the latter since it's not a regression, just an optimization.

> OK.

Thanks.

	Marek