Not that getting the terminology right isn't important, but it would be nice if Segher could get a review for the rest of the content, too. :)
Bill > On Jul 8, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> > wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:16:03AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: >> As far as I understand the idea, there are a number of target-specific >> things that are to be done during a function call, and the optimization >> tries to detect which of optimize each of these separately. >> >> Some synonyms and near-synonyms for these "things": >> >> aspect >> component >> concern >> duty >> element >> facet >> factor >> item >> part >> piece >> portion >> responsibility >> >> and I suppose "shrink_wrap_part" is shorter than >> "shrink_wrap_component". > > The reason I called it "concern" is that this isn't dealing with the > prologue/epilogue divided neatly into separate insns. The generic code > only deals with what basic blocks will have what concerns the prologue > deals with, dealt with. The target code then worries about what code > to write for that. "concerns" does not map 1-1 to parts of the prologue, > in the general case. (A very simple example: the arm load/store pair > instructions). > > But component is abstract enough I think. > >> (Yeah, I'm bike-shedding; sorry) > > :-) > > > Segher >
