From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <amonakov@ispras.ru>
Received: from mail.ispras.ru (mail.ispras.ru [83.149.199.84])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 894853856DCB
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon,  9 May 2022 17:15:59 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 894853856DCB
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ispras.ru
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ispras.ru
Received: from [10.10.3.121] (unknown [10.10.3.121])
 by mail.ispras.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0341E40755C2;
 Mon,  9 May 2022 17:15:53 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 20:15:52 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>
To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
cc: Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>, Artem Klimov <jakmobius@gmail.com>, 
 gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipa-visibility: Optimize TLS access [PR99619]
In-Reply-To: <YnlFuYf4Ulnk35Lz@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
Message-ID: <35ad515d-4970-1861-30c6-4a72d635c28@ispras.ru>
References: <20220417185113.25780-1-jakmobius@gmail.com>
 <ri6zgjzj4z8.fsf@suse.cz> <381c469c-516e-808f-f811-314eddaf2ba9@ispras.ru>
 <5e8789c-7394-7521-33ae-70375d9a28@ispras.ru>
 <YnlFuYf4Ulnk35Lz@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 17:16:00 -0000

On Mon, 9 May 2022, Jan Hubicka wrote:

> > On second thought, it might be better to keep the assert, and place the loop
> > under 'if (optimize)'?
> 
> The problem is that at IPA level it does not make sense to check
> optimize flag as it is function specific.  (shlib is OK to check it
> anywhere since it is global.)
> 
> So I think we really want to run the code only at the WPA time
> (symtab_state>=IPA_SSA) and we want to see what is optimization flag of
> those function referring the variable since that is what decided codegen
> we will produce.

I'm not sure about the latter. Are you suggesting we give up on upgrading
general-dynamic to local-dynamic if in a mixed-O scenario there is at least
one -O0 function referring to the variable? Why? That function will end up
even more deoptimized if we do that!

Alexander