On 10/16/2014 04:15 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 06:26:34PM +0200, Martin Liska wrote:
Hello.
Following patch introduces a new class called callgraph_annotation. Idea behind
the patch is to provide a generic interface one can use to register custom info
related to a c
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:44:05PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't like "generic annotation" facilities at all. Would it be possible
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because it's the way to hell if the IL has "magic" things only one
> pas
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 06:26:34PM +0200, Martin Liska wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Following patch introduces a new class called callgraph_annotation. Idea
> behind the patch is to provide a generic interface one can use to register
> custom info related to a cgraph_node. As you know, symbol_table
On 10/16/2014 02:05 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/16/2014 02:01 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hello.
If I recall correctly, we recycle cgraph_nodes and it's possible that an UID
is given to different nodes:
symbol_table::allocate_cgraph_symbol (void). Such uid is problematic from
perspective that it c
On 10/16/2014 02:01 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hello.
If I recall correctly, we recycle cgraph_nodes and it's possible that an UID
is given to different nodes:
symbol_table::allocate_cgraph_symbol (void). Such uid is problematic from
perspective that it cannot be used as a index to a vector.
It was
> > Hello.
> >
> > If I recall correctly, we recycle cgraph_nodes and it's possible that an UID
> > is given to different nodes:
> > symbol_table::allocate_cgraph_symbol (void). Such uid is problematic from
> > perspective that it cannot be used as a index to a vector.
> >
> > It was also Honza's n
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't like "generic annotation" facilities at all. Would it be possible
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because it's the way to hell if the IL has "magic" things only one
> pass can understand. It can't ever know if it may invalidate some
> of
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 10/16/2014 01:31 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> Following patch introduces a new class called callgraph_annotation. Idea
>>> behind the patch is to provide a gene
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> I don't like "generic annotation" facilities at all. Would it be possible
>
> Why?
Because it's the way to hell if the IL has "magic" things only one
pass can understand. It can't ever know if it may invalidate some
of that data.
Same r
On 10/16/2014 01:31 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
Following patch introduces a new class called callgraph_annotation. Idea
behind the patch is to provide a generic interface one can use to register
custom info related to a cgraph_node. As
>
> I don't like "generic annotation" facilities at all. Would it be possible
Why?
> to make cgraph UIDs not sparse? (keep a free-list of cgraph nodes
cgraph nodes are already kept "dense" via freelist. However in WPA you usually
have a lot
of different nodes prior merging and unreachable c
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Following patch introduces a new class called callgraph_annotation. Idea
> behind the patch is to provide a generic interface one can use to register
> custom info related to a cgraph_node. As you know, symbol_table provides
> hooks
Hello.
Following patch introduces a new class called callgraph_annotation. Idea behind
the patch is to provide a generic interface one can use to register custom info
related to a cgraph_node. As you know, symbol_table provides hooks for
creation, deletion and duplication of a cgraph_node. If
13 matches
Mail list logo
