From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8663 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2008 19:17:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 8647 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2008 19:17:37 -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; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:17:20 +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 m23JHHYp003124; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:17:18 -0500 Received: from omfg.slc.redhat.com (vpn-14-45.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.45]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m23JHGgt024031; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:17:16 -0500 Message-ID: <47CC4E4D.5040706@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:17:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Bergner CC: Richard Sandiford , gcc-patches , "H.J. Lu" 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> <47C467BA.1090308@redhat.com> <1204240130.7376.16.camel@otta> In-Reply-To: <1204240130.7376.16.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: 2008-03/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2 Peter Bergner wrote: > On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 12:25 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: >> 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. > > Do you mean fix it up and then call it from more than just CSE? > Currently, the only call to reg_scan() isn't in a location that > will help me. No. I mean make it smarter. If you read the code it's amazingly simplistic and punts propagation of REG_POINTER for any pseudo that is set more than once. It shouldn't be terribly difficult to build a simple propagation engine that handles multiple sets. Jeff