From: Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>
To: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>,
gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>
Subject: [PING][PATCH] enable ranger and caching in pass_waccess
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 09:20:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ba41ff81-809b-8cc0-2983-f2e082266ec7@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <71d7a933-6942-1598-0cdd-5413f03fc188@gmail.com>
Ping: Andrew, did I answer your questions? Do you (or anyone else)
have any other comments on the latest patch below?
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/577865.html
On 8/20/21 4:16 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 8/20/21 7:09 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> On 8/19/21 7:09 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> The attached patch changes the new access warning pass to use
>>> the per-function ranger instance. To do that it makes a number
>>> of the global static functions members of the pass (that involved
>>> moving one to a later point in the file, increasing the diff;
>>> the body of the function hasn't changed otherwise). Still more
>>> functions remain. At the same time, the patch also enables
>>> the simple pointer_query cache to avoid repeatedly recomputing
>>> the properties of related pointers into the same objects, and
>>> makes the cache more effective (trunk fails to cache a bunch of
>>> intermediate results). Finally, the patch enhances the debugging
>>> support for the cache.
>>>
>>> Other than the ranger/caching the changes have no user-visible
>>> effect.
>>
>>
>> Why are you calling enable/disable ranger if you are passing a ranger
>> instance around instead of using the get_range_query (cfun)->range*
>> calls?
>
> The pass stores an instance of the pointer_query class which in
> turn stores a pointer to range_query (which is a copy of the ranger).
> So storing it also in pass_waccess isn't necessary and can be
> removed. I've made that change in the attached update. I'm not
> sure the corresponding pointer should at some point also be removed
> from the pointer_query class and replaced by calls to get_range_query
> (cfun). If so, that would take some surgery to the strlen pass which
> also uses pointer_query and isn't quite ready to make this switch.
>
>
>>
>> Are you planning to transition to using the get_range_query()
>> interface instead of keeping a range_query pointer in the
>> pointer_query class?
>
> This pass and to a smaller extent the pointer_query class that's
> used by it and the strlen pass are still a work in progress.
> I also still need to convert the strlen pass to use Ranger and
> I expect it will take some changes to pointer_query. So at that
> point, if going through get_range_query (cfun) everywhere is what
> you recommend, I'm happy to do it.
>
> Anyway, attached is an updated revision with the m_ranger member
> removed and a few helpers changed to take a range_query argument
> to use the pointer_query member instead. It was retested on
> x86_64-linux.
>
> Martin
>
> PS There has been an effort to get rid of global variables from GCC,
> or, as the first step, to avoid accessing them directly(*). If and
> when that happens, it seems like each pass will have to store either
> the ranger instance as a member (directly or indirectly, via a member
> of a class that stores it) or the function passed to pass::execute()
> if it wants to access either.
>
> [*] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/573975.html
> The patch at the link above wasn't approved but IIUC removing globals
> from GCC is still a goal.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-25 15:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-19 23:09 [PATCH] " Martin Sebor
2021-08-20 13:09 ` Andrew MacLeod
2021-08-20 22:16 ` Martin Sebor
2021-08-25 15:20 ` Martin Sebor [this message]
2021-08-25 16:14 ` [PING][PATCH] " Andrew MacLeod
2021-08-25 21:26 ` Martin Sebor
2021-08-30 14:27 ` [PING #2][PATCH] " Martin Sebor
2021-08-31 6:00 ` Richard Biener
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=ba41ff81-809b-8cc0-2983-f2e082266ec7@gmail.com \
--to=msebor@gmail.com \
--cc=aldyh@redhat.com \
--cc=amacleod@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
/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).