Jeff Law writes:
> On 10/3/19 6:47 AM, Andrea Corallo wrote: >> >> Jeff Law writes: >> >>> On 10/1/19 4:11 AM, Andrea Corallo wrote: >>>> Martin Jambor writes: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 30 2019, Andrea Corallo wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> I'd like to submit this patch. >>>>>> It release the ipa cp transformation summary after functions being >>>>>> expanded. >>>>>> This is to fix the compiler when used with libgccjit on subsequent >>>>>> compilations (every new compilation should have a clean transformation >>>>>> summary). >>>>> if this is a general problem then I think we should instead add another >>>>> hook to class ipa_opt_pass_d to free transformation summary, call it for >>>>> all IPA passes at the appropriate time and implement it for IPA-CP. That >>>>> way it will work for all IPA passes which might have a transformation >>>>> summary. >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Bootstrap on arm64 and X86-64. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bests >>>>>> Andrea >>>>>> >>>>>> gcc/ChangeLog >>>>>> 2019-??-?? Andrea Corallo <andrea.cora...@arm.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> * cgraphunit.c (expand_all_functions): Release ipcp_transformation_sum >>>>>> when finished. >>>>>> * ipa-prop.c (ipcp_free_transformation_sum): New function. >>>>>> * ipa-prop.h (ipcp_free_transformation_sum): Add declaration. >>>> Hi, >>>> actually looking around in order to implement the suggestions I realized >>>> that already some code was put in place in toplev::finalize calling >>>> then ipa_cp_c_finalize exactly for this purpose. >>>> >>>> I've updated the patch accordingly. >>>> >>>> Bootstraped on aarch64. >>>> >>>> Is it okay for trunk? >>>> >>>> Bests >>>> Andrea >>>> >>>> gcc/ChangeLog >>>> 2019-??-?? Andrea Corallo <andrea.cora...@arm.com> >>>> >>>> * ipa-cp.c (ipa_cp_c_finalize): Release ipcp_transformation_sum. >>>> * ipa-prop.c (ipcp_free_transformation_sum): New function. >>>> * ipa-prop.h (ipcp_free_transformation_sum): Add declaration. >>> OK for the trunk. >>> >>> jeff >> >> Applied as r276507. >> >> The same patch applies cleanly onto gcc-9-branch, I think would be good to >> back port it cause libgccjit is not very usable without. >> Should we back port it? > It's a bit out of the scope of what we usually backport, but I think > this is a reasonable exception. So, yea, if you want, go ahead. > > Thanks > jeff Thanks, committed as r276625. Bests Andrea
