From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>,Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Add VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR to operand_equal_p
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 17:14:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9D70ECF7-CCB9-4D4E-955F-AD66BE7B22E3@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151018160651.GA63497@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
On October 18, 2015 6:06:51 PM GMT+02:00, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>Hello,
>> > I was only tracking one isse I hit: Fortran/C interoperability nees
>LTO to
>> > produce same TYPE_CANONICAl for signed and unsigned version of
>size_t.
>> > Doing so broke useless_type_conversion because it used
>TYPE_CANONICAL. We
>> > discussed the topic on the GNU Cauldron and decided that it is
>cleaner to
>> > drop TYPE_CANONICAL from useless_type_conversion because it does
>not really
>> > belong there.
>>
>> OK, thanks for the explanation.
>>
>> > That is only change I plan into the area. The decision to drop
>comparsion of
>> > TYPE_MODE from the aggregate path was decision of the discussion
>about this
>> > particular patch and I do not really insist on it.
>> >
>> > Having fewer VCE expressions in the code is not a bad thing, but I
>do not
>> > really see it as an important change. I am sorry for the breakage
>in move
>> > expansion that I hoped to not be as important. I am willing to
>continue
>> > fixing the fallout (and be more cureful about it - obviously I
>originally
>> > underestimated the issue). I am also happy with simply adding back
>the mode
>> > checking and drop the changes we did to expr.c so far.
>>
>> I agree on the fewer VCE expressions goal (and I have an upcoming
>gigi change
>> to that effect) but some of them are essentially mandated by the RTL
>level
>> and, since GENERIC & GIMPLE are ultimately lowered to RTL, they need
>to take
>> that into account IMO. So, if the mode change is not really
>necessary for the
>> rest of the work, I'd restore the mode check (and this only affects
>Ada in
>> practice since apparently only the Ada compiler fiddles with the type
>mode).
>
>Why is Ada fliddling with the modes? Is it only for packed structures?
>
>I was wondering how to produce VCE convesions of aggregates with C
>frontend at
>all (that is getting them synthetized by the middle-end) to get non-ada
>testcases. Storing through union is never folded to one and I don't
>see any
>other obvious way of getting them. Perhaps it may be possible to get
>them via
>inliner on incompatible parameter and LTO, but that seems to be the
>only case
>I can think of right now.
>
>I am testing the change to compare modes and revert the two expr.c
>changes.
>Lets see what is Richard's opinion. The whole concept of modes on
>aggregate
>types is bit funny post-tree-ssa days when we do SRA. I suppose they
>may be
>tied to calling conventions, but should no longer be needed for code
>quality?
Adding back the mode check is fine if all types with the same TYPE_CANONICAL have the same mode. Otherwise we'd regress here. I thought we do for
Struct x { int i; };
Typedef y x __attribute__((packed));
And then doing
X x;
Y y;
X = y;
Richard.
>Honza
>>
>> --
>> Eric Botcazou
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-18 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-14 16:29 Jan Hubicka
2015-10-15 8:39 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-15 11:22 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-10-15 19:47 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-10-15 23:24 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-10-16 15:58 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-10-16 21:47 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-17 10:27 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-10-17 15:17 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-17 18:57 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-10-18 12:57 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-10-18 16:37 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-10-18 17:14 ` Richard Biener [this message]
2015-10-18 18:45 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-10-19 12:31 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-19 21:01 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-10-19 8:17 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-10-19 7:58 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-10-19 19:46 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-10-20 7:02 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-10-21 22:22 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-10-22 8:52 ` Andreas Schwab
2015-10-28 22:49 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-10-29 4:35 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-10-29 11:31 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-29 11:32 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-29 11:32 ` Richard Biener
2015-11-04 8:51 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-10-29 15:06 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-10-29 15:24 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-29 15:53 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-10-30 8:57 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-30 15:28 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-11-02 9:55 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-30 9:56 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-10-30 15:19 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-10-31 17:39 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-10-31 17:58 ` Richard Biener
2015-11-03 10:26 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-11-03 11:39 ` Richard Biener
2015-11-02 9:30 ` Andreas Schwab
2015-11-03 8:43 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-11-04 7:23 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-11-04 8:20 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-11-04 16:50 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-11-05 13:49 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-21 4:42 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-10-21 8:54 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-21 11:24 ` Eric Botcazou
2015-10-23 5:22 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-10-23 9:14 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-15 16:59 ` Jan Hubicka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9D70ECF7-CCB9-4D4E-955F-AD66BE7B22E3@gmail.com \
--to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=ebotcazou@adacore.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hubicka@ucw.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).