Hi and thanks for the review!
Here's the updated patch.

Le 2024-01-24 à 09 h 54, David Malcolm a écrit :
> On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 16:54 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
>> Hi.
>> This patch adds a new way to create local variable that won't
>> generate
>> debug info: it is to be used for compiler-generated variables.
>> Thanks for the review.
> 
> Thanks for the patch.
> 
>> diff --git a/gcc/jit/docs/topics/compatibility.rst b/gcc/jit/docs/topics/compatibility.rst
>> index cbf5b414d8c..5d62e264a00 100644
>> --- a/gcc/jit/docs/topics/compatibility.rst
>> +++ b/gcc/jit/docs/topics/compatibility.rst
>> @@ -390,3 +390,12 @@ on functions and variables:
>>     * :func:`gcc_jit_function_add_string_attribute`
>>     * :func:`gcc_jit_function_add_integer_array_attribute`
>>     * :func:`gcc_jit_lvalue_add_string_attribute`
>> +
>> +.. _LIBGCCJIT_ABI_27:
>> +
>> +``LIBGCCJIT_ABI_27``
>> +--------------------
>> +``LIBGCCJIT_ABI_27`` covers the addition of a functions to create a new
> 
> "functions" -> "function"
> 
>> +temporary variable:
>> +
>> +  * :func:`gcc_jit_function_new_temp`
>> diff --git a/gcc/jit/docs/topics/functions.rst b/gcc/jit/docs/topics/functions.rst
>> index 804605ea939..230caf42466 100644
>> --- a/gcc/jit/docs/topics/functions.rst
>> +++ b/gcc/jit/docs/topics/functions.rst
>> @@ -171,6 +171,26 @@ Functions
>>      underlying string, so it is valid to pass in a pointer to an on-stack
>>      buffer.
>>   
>> +.. function:: gcc_jit_lvalue *\
>> +              gcc_jit_function_new_temp (gcc_jit_function *func,\
>> +                                         gcc_jit_location *loc,\
>> +                                         gcc_jit_type *type)
>> +
>> +   Create a new local variable within the function, of the given type.
>> +   This function is similar to :func:`gcc_jit_function_new_local`, but
>> +   it is to be used for compiler-generated variables (as opposed to
>> +   user-defined variables in the language to be compiled) and these
>> +   variables won't show up in the debug info.
>> +
>> +   The parameter ``type`` must be non-`void`.
>> +
>> +   This entrypoint was added in :ref:`LIBGCCJIT_ABI_26`; you can test
>> +   for its presence using
> 
> The ABI number is inconsistent here (it's 27 above and in the .map
> file), but obviously you can fix this when you eventually commit this
> based on what the ABI number actually is.
> 
> [...snip...]
> 
>> diff --git a/gcc/jit/jit-playback.cc b/gcc/jit/jit-playback.cc
>> index 84df6c100e6..cb6b2f66276 100644
>> --- a/gcc/jit/jit-playback.cc
>> +++ b/gcc/jit/jit-playback.cc
>> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
>>   #include "toplev.h"
>>   #include "tree-cfg.h"
>>   #include "convert.h"
>> +#include "gimple-expr.h"
>>   #include "stor-layout.h"
>>   #include "print-tree.h"
>>   #include "gimplify.h"
>> @@ -1950,13 +1951,27 @@ new_local (location *loc,
>>   	   type *type,
>>   	   const char *name,
>>   	   const std::vector<std::pair<gcc_jit_variable_attribute,
>> -				       std::string>> &attributes)
>> +				       std::string>> &attributes,
>> +	   bool is_temp)
>>   {
>>     gcc_assert (type);
>> -  gcc_assert (name);
>> -  tree inner = build_decl (UNKNOWN_LOCATION, VAR_DECL,
>> +  tree inner;
>> +  if (is_temp)
>> +  {
>> +    inner = build_decl (UNKNOWN_LOCATION, VAR_DECL,
>> +			create_tmp_var_name ("JITTMP"),
>> +			type->as_tree ());
>> +    DECL_ARTIFICIAL (inner) = 1;
>> +    DECL_IGNORED_P (inner) = 1;
>> +    DECL_NAMELESS (inner) = 1;
> 
> We could assert that "name" is null in the is_temp branch.
> 
> An alternative approach might be to drop "is_temp", and instead make
> "name" being null signify that it's a temporary, if you prefer that
> approach.  Would client code ever want to specify a name prefix for a
> temporary?

No, I don't think anyone would want a different prefix.

> 
> 
>> +  }
>> +  else
>> +  {
>> +    gcc_assert (name);
>> +    inner = build_decl (UNKNOWN_LOCATION, VAR_DECL,
>>   			   get_identifier (name),
>>   			   type->as_tree ());
>> +  }
>>     DECL_CONTEXT (inner) = this->m_inner_fndecl;
>>   
>>     /* Prepend to BIND_EXPR_VARS: */
> 
> [...snip...]
> 
> Thanks again for the patch.  Looks good to me as-is (apart from the
> grammar and ABI number nits), but what do you think of eliminating
> "is_temp" in favor of the "name" ptr being null?  I think it's your
> call.
> 
> Dave
>