From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.20.16]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ED0B385840C for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 17:27:48 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 9ED0B385840C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=ucw.cz Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=kam.mff.cuni.cz Received: by nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 16202) id 9579A282393; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 18:27:46 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ucw.cz; s=gen1; t=1675877266; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=EB78ostri0Sypm1keZpdySo6jRCq/bmWgGE1K7CkM1k=; b=P8cDS8vP87E6OuBiajKIzn0CU15Y/Z8jzqqbr5YgYedcb7x3KHAxpd5JtLDfVOOLHWkS6E HNftRGqq0CpQqIrbYXTp6Jx0i8hrGOFMQ+vRt9IoV+f452fXyuJmdrk6MqL13FOhQ6L0VS zh6vPOShw0pSFQFRs8SveQ6lt9u4Nck= Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 18:27:46 +0100 From: Jan Hubicka To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Richard Biener , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgraph: Handle simd clones in cgraph_node::set_{const,pure}_flag [PR106433] Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 06:10:08PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > My understanding of simd clones is bit limited, but I think you are > > right that they should have the same semantics as their caller. > > > > I think const may be one that makes compiler to ICE, but > > there are many other places where function body is analyzed and all its > > aliases/thunks and other variants should be updated too. For exmaple > > set_pure_flag, nothrow, noreturn and analysis done by modref, > > ipa-refernece etc. > > > > I wonder if we want to update them all and hide that in some > > abstraction? Next stage 1 I can work on inventing iterators for those > > kind of things as current approach combinindg direct walkters and > > function wrappers has become bit hard to maintain in cases like this. > > I think it depends on whether we do that analysis or update it post IPA > or not. Because simd clones are created very late during IPA, if say > the nothrow, noreturn, modref etc. analysis is done only during IPA or > before it, we don't need to walk the simd clones. > It is just for late GIMPLE analysis that changes flags that later on > could be used in callers of those functions. > pure/const flag is what I know can happen this late, what else? We have late pure/const (doing pure, const, nothrow, noreturn), modref (which also discovers pure/const attributes and produces its own summaries) and except.c at the very end of copimlation can set notrow flag... This is all I can think of. Honza > > Jakub >