From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 33827 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2017 10:21:15 -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 33812 invoked by uid 89); 16 Oct 2017 10:21:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=fastest X-HELO: mail-qk0-f179.google.com Received: from mail-qk0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-qk0-f179.google.com) (209.85.220.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:21:13 +0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 17so12127449qkq.8 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 03:21:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WHEwO1C6GdgJI3qdhQHDNeY25PPEhAmZKc8qJcOdREs=; b=VdNKVeXQssZZMsXeFyLmHe17WcJ4lHIAb3ZYwXZlEi9wVhmPnhvKNkF/VC0HY8qTOk B2KHjRp7edlhjg7A3AaoCyaOtLljNJX0dSnjlBmmu6ZQBJpgtBoP3hjZ/fKL7+La/i0E E3ODz1l4eKAb+/JVHOjXF4hM5ytFIQdbw4cbpFU1IHf9K+hnVs+sRpF4/ewugVmz392P ouxWDE3H4E3HV7iApSbgXPlcSJA3Q7ewpvDTGcd1m/A0Rr19a5o+FlZlVoH7x6NWIVFk Yqy/bMF+Z11ur8Qzokl/RO54EIkjhRfvfO0EcP5gys+w6xSWUGfRrRSQiEXtguhu0KkF t3kg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXGj/QO4NoOjeCuEZUWT3l0UO5M85sYDfFhM6R+ldmcxroo+dxo xo50b1/U2mX4K8h3nK3HogSiMw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TPB7D3kgcKPG36Rq5snoZZ1s+fQ1F//t6Yh9yFDhlgCFMmU9nBdmRHFst2ke6ffe4uUHi/Ow== X-Received: by 10.55.18.165 with SMTP id 37mr12331708qks.352.1508149271590; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 03:21:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [100.73.89.16] ([209.117.102.182]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id s1sm4626670qte.8.2017.10.16.03.21.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Oct 2017 03:21:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH PR/82546] tree node size To: Richard Biener , GCC Patches , Jeff Law References: <3e7ecb64-cd96-47a3-cb75-53e41317d90c@acm.org> <73AFE619-57E8-4944-ADB7-0D1AC9118E34@suse.de> From: Nathan Sidwell Message-ID: <4fb6d651-76af-4891-a37f-9436257aa090@acm.org> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:47:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <73AFE619-57E8-4944-ADB7-0D1AC9118E34@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg00975.txt.bz2 On 10/16/2017 02:49 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On October 13, 2017 8:29:40 PM GMT+02:00, Nathan Sidwell wrote: >> I intend to continue cleaning this up of course. It's not clear to me >> whether we should cache these node sizes in an array, and the way it >> goes about checking nodes with nested switches is understandable, but >> possible not the fastest solution. However let's at least get the >> sizing >> right first. > > We were conservative exactly to avoid the langhook here. I think there's similar 'bug' on the decl side. The other code types (decls, exprs, etc) call the langhook. tcc_type seems the exception (now?). nathan -- Nathan Sidwell