On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:35:07AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> LGTM - any reason you only sometimes conditionalize add_tree_to_fld_list
> on the fld->pset.add () result? IMHO consistency should win over
> micro-optimizing the case you know the type will not be in the set.
Yeah, it was a optimization for the most common case, when
find_decls_types_r calls add_tree_to_fld_list (t, fld); for DECL_P as well
as TYPE_P, because in that case the fld->pset.add check has been done
already by walk_tree. If we have hundreds thousands of elts in the
hash_set, it could be more than a microoptimization, but if you think
strongly that it should be all thrown away and add_tree_to_fld_list should
start with if (fld->pset.add (t)) return; then I can do that too.
> > 2019-03-20 Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz>
> > Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
> >
> > PR lto/89692
> > * tree.c (fld_type_variant): Call fld->pset.add.
> > (fld_incomplete_type_of): Likewise and don't call add_tree_to_fld_list
> > if it returns true.
> > (fld_process_array_type): Likewise.
> > (free_lang_data_in_type): Purge non-marked types from TYPE_NEXT_VARIANT
> > list.
> > (find_decls_types_r): Call fld_worklist_push for TYPE_CANONICAL (t).
> >
> > * g++.dg/other/pr89692.C: New test.
Jakub
