On August 29, 2014 8:08:38 PM CEST, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
>On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 19:58 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> You are in the same situation as any other pass would be. Don't hang
>on things that can get stale.
>>
>> There is no point in keeping a pointer to a deleted edge.
>
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 12:54:16AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Trevor Saunders
> wrote:
>
> >> Of course we should make things more explicit here and move all data
> >> structures out of GC that are explicitly freed. Work in that direction is
> >> welcome
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>> Of course we should make things more explicit here and move all data
>> structures out of GC that are explicitly freed. Work in that direction is
>> welcome. The CFG is in GC memory because it indirectly refers to trees (the
>> sing
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 07:58:14PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On August 29, 2014 5:29:43 PM CEST, Basile Starynkevitch
> wrote:
> >Hello All,
> >
> >[[I know that this is a sensitive issue, and I also know that I am in
> >the minority believing that a garbage collection is useful inside the
>
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 19:58 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> You are in the same situation as any other pass would be. Don't hang on
> things that can get stale.
>
> There is no point in keeping a pointer to a deleted edge.
Yes there is. The use case is to make some statistics on edges and to
On August 29, 2014 5:29:43 PM CEST, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>[[I know that this is a sensitive issue, and I also know that I am in
>the minority believing that a garbage collection is useful inside the
>GCC compiler]]
>
>How should plugins deal with data that is explicitly gcc_f
