From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 104989 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2019 15:09:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 104970 invoked by uid 89); 2 Jul 2019 15:09:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=paulmcklinuxibmcom, paulmck@linux.ibm.com, H*i:CAJA7tRaDE1t7Cd, H*i:sk:OAQJF9x X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.158.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 15:09:38 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x62F7fMN072081 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:09:36 -0400 Received: from e11.ny.us.ibm.com (e11.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.201]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2tg8ub2j7m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:09:36 -0400 Received: from localhost by e11.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 16:09:35 +0100 Received: from b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.26) by e11.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.198) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 2 Jul 2019 16:09:32 +0100 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x62F9V2q28836330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:09:31 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3450B2066; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:09:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01F9B205F; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:09:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.26]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:09:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6DD6D16C1D7F; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 15:09:00 -0000 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Ramana Radhakrishnan Cc: Akshat Garg , gcc mailing list Subject: Re: Doubts regarding the _Dependent_ptr keyword Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190620140600.GA15142@linux.ibm.com> <20190702123809.GM26519@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) x-cbid: 19070215-2213-0000-0000-000003A77E1B X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00011366; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000286; SDB=6.01226414; UDB=6.00645654; IPR=6.01007635; MB=3.00027555; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-07-02 15:09:34 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19070215-2214-0000-0000-00005F13B397 Message-Id: <20190702150931.GR26519@linux.ibm.com> X-SW-Source: 2019-07/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:15:55PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > Once a user-created non-dependent pointer is assigned to, it is OK to > > break the dependency. > > Ok, that's good. > > > > Or am I missing the point here? > > I was just trying to make sure we were on the same page. I wonder if > marking this volatile would be sufficient for prototyping. I suspect > we would need another flag somewhere which someone with gimple > knowledge might be able to help us with. I expect that marking it as volatile would do the trick. ;-) Thanx, Paul > regards > Ramana > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > Ramana > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Does this sounds like a workable plan for ? Let me know your thoughts. If this sounds good then, we can do this for all the optimizations that may kill the dependencies at somepoint. > > > >> > > > > >> > -Akshat > > > > > >