From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 39552 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2016 18:13:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 39538 invoked by uid 89); 22 Feb 2016 18:13:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=HTo:U*java-patches, U*roger, rogernextmovesoftwarecom, elimination X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:13:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9CFC7AE8E for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:13:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zebedee.pink ([10.3.113.3]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1MIDd8d017948; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:13:39 -0500 Subject: Re: [JAVA PATCH] Enable more array bounds check elimination To: java-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <4F362C11-3DAA-4A9A-AEAB-089C20B3590C@nextmovesoftware.com> From: Andrew Haley Message-ID: <56CB4FD3.8000601@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4F362C11-3DAA-4A9A-AEAB-089C20B3590C@nextmovesoftware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-q1/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 On 02/22/2016 06:10 PM, roger@nextmovesoftware.com wrote: > Please let me know what you think (for stage 1 once it reopens)? It's an interesting approach. I have a few times discussed with optimization people the idea of marking some fields as "effectively const" so that we can do the bounds check elimination. However, these discussions came to naught. I take it that this only really works with new arrays? Thanks, Andrew.