On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:43 PM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 08:19 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> On 11/01/2013 06:58 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 22:57 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 05:47:14PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> >>> On 11/01/2013 05:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 05:36:34PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> >>>>> static inline void
>> >>>>> ! gimple_call_set_lhs (gimple gs, tree lhs)
>> >>>>> {
>> >>>>> - GIMPLE_CHECK (gs, GIMPLE_CALL);
>> >> The checking you are removing here.
>> >>
>> >>> What checking? There ought to be no checking at all in this
>> >>> example... gimple_build_call_vec returns a gimple_call, and
>> >>> gimple_call_set_lhs() doesn't have to check anything because it
>> >>> only accepts gimple_call's.. so there is no checking other than the
>> >>> usual "does my parameter match" that the compiler has to do...
>> >> and want to replace it by checking of the types at compile time.
>> >> The problem is that it uglifies the source too much, and, when you
>> >> actually don't have a gimple_call but supposedly a base class of it,
>> >> I expect you'd do as_a which is not only further uglification, but has
>> >> runtime cost also for --enable-checking=release.
>> > I can have a look next week at every call to gimple_call_set_lhs in the
>> > tree, and see to what extent we know at compile-time that the initial
>> > arg is indeed a call (of the ones I quickly grepped just now, most are
>> > from gimple_build_call and friends, but one was from a gimple_copy).
>> >
>> > FWIW I did some performance testing of the is_a/as_a code in the earlier
>> > version of the patch, and it didn't have a noticable runtime cost
>> > compared to the GIMPLE_CHECK in the existing code:
>> > Size of compiler executable:
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg01920.html
>> > Compile times:
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00171.html
>> I actually really dislike as_a<> and is_a<>, and think code needs to be
>> restructured rather than use them, other than possibly at the very
>> bottom level when we're allocating memory or something like that, or
>> some kind of emergency :-)... If we require frequent uses of those,
>> I'd be against it, I find them quite ugly.
>>
>> Like I said in the other reply, no rush, I don't think any of this
>> follow up is appropriate this late in stage 1. It would be more of an
>> "interest" examination right now.. at least in my opinion... I suspect
>> thinks like gimple_assign are more complex cases, but without looking
>> its hard to tell for sure.
>
> I tried converting gimple_call_set_lhs to accept a gimple_call, rather
> than a gimple, and excitingly, it was easiest to also convert
> cgraph_edge's call_stmt to also be a gimple_call, rather than just a
> gimple.
Does that work (using gimple_call * objects) for our garbage collector?
That is, does it know it is looking at a 'gimple'? It doesn't matter for this
case as all stmts are reachable from struct function as sequence of 'gimple',
but in general?
Richard.
> Am attaching a patch (on top of the patch series being discussed) which
> adds this compile-time typesafety; bootstrap is in-progress. IMHO very
> little use of is-a.h was needed (5 instances of as_a, and 3 of dyn_cast;
> no use of is_a).
>
> I'm also attaching a followup patch which eliminates gimple_call_set_lhs
> in favor of a method of gimple_statement_call.
>
