From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29414 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2011 16:07:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 29405 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Apr 2011 16:07:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cantor.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:07:50 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CEF8E8CC; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:07:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:07:00 -0000 From: Michael Matz To: Eric Botcazou Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Remember/restore ALLOCA_FOR_VAR_P over tuples In-Reply-To: <201104141742.59090.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Message-ID: References: <201104141742.59090.ebotcazou@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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/msg01098.txt.bz2 Hi, On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > We have a flag for this already on the CALL_EXPR. But we don't retain > > it over tuples, and hence we also don't look at it in > > inline_forbidden_p_stmt. This patch fixes both. (The strange testing > > of builtin-ness is because in CALL_EXPR the ALLOCA_FOR_VAR_P and > > CALL_FROM_THUNK_P flags are overloaded) > > More precisely, we don't expose it on tuples; we do retain it over > tuples since we tuplify CALL_FROM_THUNK_P and we rematerialize it in > expand_call_stmt. Right, that's correct, although of course it relies on the sharing of both flags on the tree side, which surprised me a bit as no comments in gimple.c/cfgexpand.c prepared me for that :) I chose to not retain this sharing of flags for the gimple tuple, we have enough bits available for now. > Nice patch. The idea also occurred to me recently because we often run > into the inlining limitation in Ada. > > Btw, I don't remember why I chose ALLOCA_FOR_VAR_P over > CALL_ALLOCA_FOR_VAR_P but, given the name of the GIMPLE flag and > predicate, it's probably time to change it. Good idea, I'll rename it before checking in. Ciao, Michael.