On Sun, 24 Nov 2013, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 11/12/2013 04:22 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
Anyway you need a better analysis to determine if user called realloc on
converted pointer.
Note that I am checking if the argument of free is the same as the
retur
On 11/12/2013 04:22 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
Anyway you need a better analysis to determine if user called realloc on
converted pointer.
Note that I am checking if the argument of free is the same as the
return value of malloc by looking at the SSA_NAME,
On 11/12/13 05:41, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
I am trying to get something to actually work and be accepted in
gcc. That may mean being conservative.
That also may mean that you will cover only cases where it is not needed.
A malloc will have a small per-thre
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
Seems to be missing some bits.
A example, its purpose is to show a idea not to be complete.
I agree, but when too many bits are missing or wrong I fail to get the
idea :-(
How will you find small constant allocations with this in place?
I won't.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 05:01:31PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:41:24PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >>On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> >>
> I am trying to get something to actually work and be accepted in
> g
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:41:24PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
I am trying to get something to actually work and be accepted in
gcc. That may mean being conservative.
That also may mean that you will cover only
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
Anyway you need a better analysis to determine if user called realloc on
converted pointer.
Note that I am checking if the argument of free is the same as the return
value of malloc by looking at the SSA_NAME, not the C variable. If the
user called re
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:55:17AM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>I am posting this patch to get some feedback on the approach. The goal is to
> >>replace malloc+free with a stack
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:41:24PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
>
> >>I am trying to get something to actually work and be accepted in
> >>gcc. That may mean being conservative.
> >
> >That also may mean that you will cover only cases where it is not needed.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
I am trying to get something to actually work and be accepted in
gcc. That may mean being conservative.
That also may mean that you will cover only cases where it is not needed.
A malloc will have a small per-thread cache for small requests that does
n
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:16:14AM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 04:27:00PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>I am posting this patch to get some feedback on the approach. The
> >>goal is to replace malloc+free with a
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 04:27:00PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
I am posting this patch to get some feedback on the approach. The
goal is to replace malloc+free with a stack allocation (a decl
actually) when the size is a small constant.
Why const
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
I am posting this patch to get some feedback on the approach. The goal is to
replace malloc+free with a stack allocation (a decl actually) when the size
is a small constant.
For testing, I h
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am posting this patch to get some feedback on the approach. The goal is to
> replace malloc+free with a stack allocation (a decl actually) when the size
> is a small constant.
>
> For testing, I highjacked the "leaf" attribute, but
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:19:05AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:08:14AM +0100, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 04:27:00PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > > I am posting this patch to get some feedback on the approach. The
> > > goal is to replace malloc+fre
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:08:14AM +0100, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 04:27:00PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > I am posting this patch to get some feedback on the approach. The
> > goal is to replace malloc+free with a stack allocation (a decl
> > actually) when the size is a smal
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 04:27:00PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am posting this patch to get some feedback on the approach. The
> goal is to replace malloc+free with a stack allocation (a decl
> actually) when the size is a small constant.
>
Why constraint yourself to small sizes. Stac
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
I am posting this patch to get some feedback on the approach. The goal is to
replace malloc+free with a stack allocation (a decl actually) when the size
is a small constant.
A slightly updated version that handles abort and if(VAR==0) where VAR is
the
Hello,
I am posting this patch to get some feedback on the approach. The goal is
to replace malloc+free with a stack allocation (a decl actually) when the
size is a small constant.
For testing, I highjacked the "leaf" attribute, but it isn't right, I'll
remove it from the list (not sure what
19 matches
Mail list logo
