On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 01:57:48PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 05/31/2017 01:51 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 01:46:00PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> Just wanting to add that "ab-"using options/variables to implement
> >> what are really
> >> function attributes doesn't look very clean. Unless the plan is to get
> >> rid of
> >> function attributes in favor of per-function options.
> >
> > Function attribute here is one thing (the way user writes it) and that
> > combined with the command line options determines the sanitization performed
> > (the function attributes only say what sanitization flags should be
> > ignored). The proposed per-function variable is just a cache of this
> > information, because parsing function attributes every time is way too
> > expensive.
>
> But one the other hand every function decorated with such attribute will lead
> to having a separate copy of struct cl_optimization, which is quite big
> structure.
Separate? I thought cl_optimization structs are shared, so if you have 2
functions that have the same no_sanitize* attributes and all other
optimization flags same as well, they should share OPTIMIZATION_NODE.
Jakub
