From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4316 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 14:17:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4304 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 14:17:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (69.3.5.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 14:17:43 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.7] (account dberlin [192.168.1.7] verified) by dberlin.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.4) with ESMTP-TLS id 5171164; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:17:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20031008135344.GB18809@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20031006223141.GA2094@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1065619632.7057.44.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> <20031008135344.GB18809@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <2B078B03-F99A-11D7-BF76-000A95AF1FAE@dberlin.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , Diego Novillo From: Daniel Berlin Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Garbage collector x bb annotations Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:17:00 -0000 To: Zdenek Dvorak X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00282.txt.bz2 On Oct 8, 2003, at 9:53 AM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote: > Hello, > >>> I have just run into the following problem: dom_children get >>> released by >>> ggc_collect call in tree-ssa-pre. Allocating them by ggc seems >>> wrong to >>> me, since basic block annotations are allocated from obstack and >>> invisible to garbage collector. >>> >> Yeah. But there's more than that, unfortunately. All the fields in >> struct bb_ann_d are ggc allocated. The real solution would be to >> finally convert basic blocks to ggc. Volunteers? > > I may try (I need it anyway for tree-ssa-cfg branch). The whole issue > is however quite ugly as this combines basically all allocation > mechanisms that are available in gcc (basic blocks themselves are pool > allocated). They used to be obstack allocated, so consider yourself lucky :P. You could add a "fields_only" flag and modify gengtype to not mark the actual bb, only it's fields. I could probably do this if you guys think it's a viable solution. --Dan