On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:02 PM Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 31 2018, Michael Ploujnikov wrote:
> > I've done some more digging into the current uses of
> > numbered_clone_function_name and checked if any tests fail if I change
> > it to suffixed_function_name:
> >
> > - gcc/cgraphclones.c: DECL_NAME (new_decl) =
> > numbered_clone_function_name (thunk->decl, "artificial_thunk");
> > - no new tests fail, inconclusive
> > - and despite the comment on redirect_callee_duplicating_thunks
> > about "one or more" duplicates it doesn't seem like
> > duplicate_thunk_for_node would be called more than once for each
> > node, assuming each node is named uniquely, but I'm far from an
> > expert in this area
>
> The comment means that if there is a chain of thunks, the method clones
> all of them. Nevertheless, you need name numbering here for the same
> reason why you need them for constprop.
The remaining question I had with the patch was if maybe all callers
can handle assigning
the numbering themselves, thus do sth like
for-each-clone-of (i, fn)
DECL_NAME (...) = numbered_clone_function_name (...,
"artificial_thunk", i);
which would make the map of name -> number unnecessary.
>
> > - gcc/omp-expand.c: DECL_NAME (kern_fndecl) =
> > numbered_clone_function_name (kern_fndecl, "kernel");
> > - no new tests fail, inconclusive
> > - I didn't see (and couldn't figure out a way to get) any of the
> > existing omp/acc tests actually exercise this codeptah
>
> I guess this one should not need it. Build with
> --enable-offload-targets=hsa and run gomp.exp to try yourself. I can
> run run-time HSA tests for you if you want.
>
> Martin
