From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 49441 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2015 21:26:58 -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 49430 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2015 21:26:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: fencepost.gnu.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (208.118.235.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:26:56 +0000 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60909) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZrYFC-0003fS-6k for gcc-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:26:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZrYF8-0006YA-Lr for gcc-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:26:53 -0400 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:57285) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZrYF8-0006Xw-Fe for gcc-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:26:50 -0400 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1ZrYF6-0005xf-Sn from Tom_deVries@mentor.com ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:26:49 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.106) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:26:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH, 1/6] Simplify constraint handling To: Richard Biener References: <562E0CF5.8000606@mentor.com> <562E5381.5@mentor.com> <562F26E2.40906@mentor.com> <562F6D1A.4010001@mentor.com> <562F711F.80900@mentor.com> <5630F242.7040806@mentor.com> CC: Richard Biener , "gcc-patches@gnu.org" From: Tom de Vries Message-ID: <56313D94.6000704@mentor.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:32:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5630F242.7040806@mentor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Windows NT kernel [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 192.94.38.131 X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg03111.txt.bz2 On 28/10/15 17:05, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 28/10/15 16:35, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: >> >>> On 27/10/15 13:24, Tom de Vries wrote: >>>> Thinking it over a bit more, I realized the constraint handling started >>>> to be messy. I've reworked the patch series to simplify that first. >>>> >>>> 1 Simplify constraint handling >>>> 2 Rename make_restrict_var_constraints to >>>> make_param_constraints >>>> 3 Add recursion to make_param_constraints >>>> 4 Add handle_param parameter to create_variable_info_for_1 >>>> 5 Handle recursive restrict pointer in >>>> create_variable_info_for_1 >>>> 6 Handle restrict struct fields recursively >>>> >>>> Currently doing bootstrap and regtest on x86_64. >>>> >>>> I'll repost the patch series in reply to this message. >>> >>> This patch gets rid of this bit of code in intra_create_variable_infos: >>> ... >>> if (restrict_pointer_p) >>> make_constraint_from_global_restrict (p, "PARM_RESTRICT"); >>> else >>> .. >>> >>> I already proposed to remove it here ( >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg02426.html ) but there >>> is a >>> problem with that approach: It can happen that restrict_pointer_p is >>> true, but >>> p->only_restrict_pointers is false. This happens with fipa-pta, when >>> create_function_info_for created a varinfo for the parameter before >>> intra_create_variable_infos was called. >>> >>> The patch handles that case now by setting p->only_restrict_pointers. >> >> Hmm, but ... restrict only has an effect in non-IPA mode. > > Indeed, I also realized that by now. So I've committed the original, approved patch from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg02426.html Thanks, - Tom