public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>,
	GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
		Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
Subject: Re: New option to turn off stack reuse for temporaries
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:42:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc3AGM9rCxK+KBGLFYJt=HNMakULo1D=kBwPx_81MiZVrg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAkRFZ+QvEQkLnMQ1JokfpTYkfEZdotj7aZX2LXjMe80hy9EBA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> Are there any more concerns about this patch? If not, I'd like to check it in.

No - the fact that the flag is C++ specific but in common.opt is odd enough
and -ftemp-reuse-stack sounds very very generic - which in fact it is not,
it's a no-op in C.  Is there a more formal phrase for the temporary kind that
is affected?  For me "temp" is synonymous to "auto" so I'd have expected
the switch to turn off stack slot sharing for

 {
   int a[5];
 }
 {
   int a[5];
 }

but that is not what it does.  So - a little kludgy but probably more to what
I'd like it to be would be to move the option to c-family/c.opt enabled only
for C++ and Obj-C++ and export it to the middle-end via a new langhook
(the gimplifier code should be in Frontend code that lowers to GENERIC
really and the WITH_CLEANUP_EXPR code should be C++ frontend specific ...).

Thanks,
Richard.

> thanks,
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Richard Guenther
>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 06/22/2012 01:30 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What other issues? It enables more potential code motion, but on the
>>>>>> other hand, causes more conservative stack reuse. As far I can tell,
>>>>>> the handling of temporaries is added independently after the clobber
>>>>>> for scoped variables are introduced. This option can be used to
>>>>>> restore the older behavior (in handling temps).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it does not really restore the old behavior (if you mean before
>>>>> adding
>>>>> CLOBBERS, not before the single patch that might have used those for
>>>>> gimplifying WITH_CLEANUP_EXPR).  You say it disables stack-slot sharing
>>>>> for those decls but it also does other things via side-effects of no
>>>>> longer
>>>>> emitting the CLOBBER.  I say it's better to disable the stack-slot
>>>>> sharing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The patch exactly restores the behavior of temporaries from before my change
>>>> to add CLOBBERs for temporaries.  The primary effect of that change was to
>>>> provide stack-slot sharing, but if there are other effects they are probably
>>>> desirable as well, since the broken code depended on the old behavior.
>>>
>>> So you see it as workaround option, like -fno-strict-aliasing, rather than
>>> debugging aid?
>>
>> It can be used for both purposes -- if the violations are as pervasive
>> as strict-aliasing cases (which looks like so).
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>>> Jason

  reply	other threads:[~2012-06-26  8:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-20 23:44 Xinliang David Li
2012-06-21  5:28 ` Jason Merrill
2012-06-21  6:06   ` Xinliang David Li
2012-06-21  6:27     ` Jason Merrill
2012-06-21  9:32     ` Richard Guenther
2012-06-21 16:41       ` Michael Matz
2012-06-22  8:46         ` Richard Guenther
2012-06-21 18:19       ` Jason Merrill
2012-06-21 18:44       ` Xinliang David Li
2012-06-22  8:50         ` Richard Guenther
2012-06-22  9:39           ` Jason Merrill
2012-06-22  9:51             ` Richard Guenther
2012-06-22 16:09               ` Xinliang David Li
2012-06-25 16:29                 ` Xinliang David Li
2012-06-26  8:42                   ` Richard Guenther [this message]
2012-06-26 15:29                     ` Jason Merrill
2012-06-26 17:12                       ` Michael Matz
2012-06-26 17:19                         ` Jakub Jelinek
2012-06-26 20:12                         ` Mike Stump
2012-06-27  3:03                           ` Eric Botcazou
2012-06-29  8:18                     ` Xinliang David Li
2012-07-02 23:30                       ` Xinliang David Li
2012-07-04 15:01                         ` Xinliang David Li
2012-07-09 16:31                           ` Xinliang David Li
2012-07-09 22:53                         ` Jason Merrill
2012-12-02 12:32 ` Olivier Ballereau
2012-12-03  1:03   ` Xinliang David Li
2012-06-22 21:09 Jason Merrill

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='CAFiYyc3AGM9rCxK+KBGLFYJt=HNMakULo1D=kBwPx_81MiZVrg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
    --cc=davidxl@google.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jason@redhat.com \
    --cc=matz@suse.de \
    /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).