From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77B4B3858D20 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:40:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 77B4B3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 77B4B3858D20 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1710153638; cv=none; b=JEAbgXwk5zA3SHBCgGPGqN/OAZPukXMYGH6gVodWOCgsPg+ZKzGnl/yzwxFAeHikCo7dzoAMabMtGLcvk1/5d7gplfbVC+YWHng44R1V9elt0h7zdhLvK+GyCX4e+6tjLa1Myjec+7GhBtFZJLOoCYR/xC0N4s8dyMskbugreb8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1710153638; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZjBRwppZL2/hlm2ySoxNf0L5qL38egF1jRt3eZfe5vk=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=qFDQwkuXJA8KvZFUapFxX+VayZkTxLLevAhyVxKJ6QqIhVVWVpCLfrqbXyShPn1fQX59sNGzvBPgzKLtRa+pjGD6UeNrxQYOaY3+w44pk3ILjVtQ8AO+gufl6YQ1bvMdGhfVI8eCMkmjRbcJea49wBg0D/0DZ5R9haSiE5AMBK0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1710153637; h=from:from:reply-to: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=jVdLFx4Ax6Pqzje8+VG55op3XCBgyZf2wUSinZs4PIY=; b=MspRB+oE77GW9LsP30rj3ganh/ILZYDMywl8OmDyg++woGGgtDc1G1fSeMu6r6nKXkKwu7 DIvuYD8aNV62TEmZJ7JSHo+MNG0OLmQhH77HMfB3x5/0vR3e7+kodEpSVFfGZw2tnpLgaG llSVvkMVJgeKU6DhTF5wJbAWQtnlznk= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-552-siaxSvnlOfOnI35FKBFPBw-1; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 06:40:35 -0400 X-MC-Unique: siaxSvnlOfOnI35FKBFPBw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5245E3C0CEE2; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:40:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.45.225.36]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 186D42166AE5; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 42BAeX0r227719 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:40:33 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 42BAeXuI227718; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:40:33 +0100 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:40:32 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Richard Biener Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitint, v2: Avoid rewriting large/huge _BitInt vars into SSA after bitint lowering [PR114278] Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <75DCD6B5-A571-46F4-B735-F5C9DE2F0949@suse.de> <34s83n35-sss1-6640-943n-4qsqs74771qr@fhfr.qr> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <34s83n35-sss1-6640-943n-4qsqs74771qr@fhfr.qr> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham 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 Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:31:51AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, 11 Mar 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 12:25:42PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > Ideally we?d clear TREE_ADDRESSABLE but set DECL_NOT_GIMPLE_REG, > > > I think the analysis where we check the base would be a more > > > appropriate place to enforce that. > > > > So like this? > > Hm, I was thinking of non_rewritable_lvalue_p/non_rewritable_mem_ref_base > though that requires duplicating, so I guess handling in maybe_optimize_var > would work. I was considering it, but it looked like a waste to me, using bitmap bits for something that is always the case, we don't want to rewrite any large/huge _BitInt to SSA form after the lowering, not just some of them. > I do now wonder whether setting DECL_NOT_GIMPLE_REG_P in bitfield > lowering would prevail? Guess I can certainly try to set DECL_NOT_GIMPLE_REG_P on the large/huge _BitInt PARM_DECLs/RESULT_DECLs during bitint lowering even when they are TREE_ADDRESSABLE at that point; the VAR_DECLs have array types of limbs and so shouldn't be a problem. > (sorry for approving the earlier patch now, I was too quick and didn't > remember the discussion) Sorry, already committed, I can revert or incrementally adjust. Jakub