On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> 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.
True, but isn't that just an excuse to not improve attribute list representation? Ideally we'd have sth like attributes.def and a sorted vector of integer id, args pairs. Using a sorted vector of the existing stuff (compared to the tree list) might also help. Yes, we'd get (quite?) a bit less attribute list sharing this way but we can still share the actual tree-whatever thing that represents the args. Richard. > > Jakub
