Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > second, how often does this actually set anything useful with restrict > types (I assume the value is not interesting in any other cases)?
In functions which use the restrict qualifier, it does something useful pretty often: just about every time the restricted pointer is used other than as a simple *p. The real question, which I don't know the answer to, is how much that helps in common code. (It does make a significant difference in certain key functions at my current job.) > ISTM you'd be better off doing what we do with DECL_VALUE_EXPR, > DECL_DEBUG_EXPR, and DECL_INIT_PRIORITY, which is to use 1 bit to say > whether it has an "underlying nonscalar decl", and a side hashtable to > store the actual value. > > I say this because I imagine the number of DECL's which are restrict > qualified, and thus, should have an underlying nonscalar-decl, is very > small, and yet, you've added a field that is there for *all* decl's with > rtl attached to them. > > This would also solve your field-decl problem, since you could throw the > bit in the common part. Makes sense. It also reduces the cost quite a bit, which might make it a good idea even if the benefit is small, pending a more complete solution. Ian
