On 02/27/12 08:22, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >> transform by making transaction load/store stmts behave the same as >> potentially trapping stmts (thus, only optimize if the memory is accessed >> unconditional somewhere else). That would work for PRE as well. >> [easiest would be to make *_could_trap_p return true for memory ops >> inside a transaction] > > Provided the gimple bit works, this seems reasonable, though quite a big > hammer. But given that we are nearing a release, I would be in favor of it. > > Richard Henderson, what do you think?
Well, hooking could_trap_p sounds like an easy solution. Gimple bits, on the other hand, are not. Keeping those up-to-date is always a real pain. We have had several gimple bits in the history of the TM code, and we've gotten rid of them all because they were too invasive to maintain. OTOH, I have no better suggestion... r~
