https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29442
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > (In reply to comment #15)
> > Meanwhile Jakub implemented a different mean which doesn't call the
> > get_attr_
> > functions dynamically more often (which my approach potentially does), but
> > which as result isn't nearly as effective in reducing size and compile and
> > generation time.
>
> For reducing compile time (but not size/generation), we could just use the
> cache vars with some magic unset value (probably the cache vars would need
> to be int
> instead of enum for that). Then if genattrtab finds out that there is no
> dominating call to the get_attr_* function, but still potentially for one
> insn the same get_attr_* might be called more than once in certain code
> path, then
> for that code path it could just use (cache_FOO != -1 ? (enum ...) cache_FOO
> : (cache_FOO = get_attr_FOO (...))).
If these are things that could still be done, would it make sense to reopen
this bug, or open a new one for them?
