On 05/31/2017 03:31 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: >> On 05/31/2017 02:04 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Then it would be tree-wise very similar to CONSTRUCTOR which also contains >> vector >> of (index, value) pairs? >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> Any estimation how difficult such transformation would be? > > attribute lists are dealt with in quite some places (with or without > helpers) so I guess it would be somewhat invasive but largely > mechanical. Using a .def file vs. the current strings can be > done separately -- after all we can also sort strings. I suspect > doing the string -> ID transform pays off faster (still linear search > but integer comparison instead of string compare).
Ok, I'm ready to do the transformation in this stage1. That said, will you be Jakub fine with the original patch (rebase will be needed) as it is, using DECL_ATTRIBUTE? Thanks, Martin > > Richard. > >> Martin >> >>> >>> Richard. >>> >>>> >>>> Jakub >>
