On 05/31/2017 02:06 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yes. For optimizing size we might want to tweak the machinery to use a bool
> bitfield instead of {un,}signed ints for things that are really just
> flags (true/false).
I've got written that on my TODO list. Will work on that some time in the
stage1.
Martin
>
> Richard.
>
>> Jakub
