From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 396 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2008 19:26:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 387 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2008 19:26:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:26:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1QJQ3RK018269; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:26:03 -0500 Received: from omfg.slc.redhat.com (vpn-14-110.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.110]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m1QJQ22c003725; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:26:02 -0500 Message-ID: <47C467BA.1090308@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:06:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Bergner CC: Richard Sandiford , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR35371 GCSE loses track of REG_POINTER attribute References: <20080225222624.GA26857@vervain.rchland.ibm.com> <87skzfzkvh.fsf@firetop.home> <1204052325.7014.2.camel@otta> In-Reply-To: <1204052325.7014.2.camel@otta> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-02/txt/msg01312.txt.bz2 Peter Bergner wrote: > On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 17:29 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Minor suggestion, but maybe this could go in emit-rtl.c, under a more >> generic name? Given the performance impact of losing pointer info, >> it would be nice to have a defined API for creating a register that's >> like another. > > Having tracked a similar problem in another file, I was thinking along > the same lines. I'm bad at names though. Care to suggest a name for > the new function? If someone wanted to get real ambitious they could revamp the REG_POINTER propagation code as well. It's amazingly simplistic at the moment (see regclass.c:reg_scan_mark_refs). Basically it fails to propagate for any register destination that is set more than once, even if all the sets are of the proper form for propagating REG_POINTER. Jeff