From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6738 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2011 18:45:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 6727 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Apr 2011 18:45:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (74.125.121.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:44:53 +0000 Received: from kpbe17.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe17.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.81]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p3RIipB9004144 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:44:51 -0700 Received: from pwi4 (pwi4.prod.google.com [10.241.219.4]) by kpbe17.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p3RIintr020017 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:44:50 -0700 Received: by pwi4 with SMTP id 4so1183902pwi.11 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:44:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.143.26.19 with SMTP id d19mr686091wfj.131.1303929889191; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.234.20 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:44:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DB34581.50704@redhat.com> References: <20110412184923.33F942225D6@jade.mtv.corp.google.com> <4DAF5782.90009@redhat.com> <4DB0CE6E.4080105@redhat.com> <4DB34581.50704@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch] Split Parse Timevar (issue4378056) From: Lawrence Crowl To: Jason Merrill Cc: reply@codereview.appspotmail.com, dnovillo@google.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2011-04/txt/msg02151.txt.bz2 This discussion continues in the thread "[patch] Split Parse Timevar (rev 2) (issue4433076)" which has a new uploaded patch. On 4/23/11, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/22/2011 06:41 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> On 4/21/11, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> On 04/21/2011 07:17 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > >>> That makes sense. Inlines in the class aren't significantly different >>> from inlines outside the class, but inlines are significantly different >>> from non-inlines for our purposes. >> >> Do you have a quick hint for how to make that distinction? > > Check DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P after we've parsed the declarator. > >>>>>> -DEFTIMEVAR (TV_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATION, "template instantiation") >>>>>> +DEFTIMEVAR (TV_INSTANTIATE_TEMPLATE , "instantiate template") >>>>> >>>>> Why these changes? >>>> >>>> Just to shorten the names. >>> >>> I'd prefer to keep it in the noun form. >> >> Okay. This on in particular was making the output wide. > > I wouldn't mind shortening it to TV_TEMPLATE_INST, I just object to the > change from noun (instantiation) to verb (instantiate). > >>> The code is cleaner the way you have it, but not as correct, as there's >>> some initialization being charged to parsing. >> >> Would you prefer moving that initialization out or placing the >> start/stop into different routines? > > I think moving the initialization out would be better. > > Jason > -- Lawrence Crowl