On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/05/2011 03:09 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>> [rth, see below]
>>>
> local_define_builtin ("__builtin_eh_pointer", ftype,
> BUILT_IN_EH_POINTER,
>
I hope this cleanup both addresses the above questions and tidies things
up as indicated. Please ask if you've got more questions.
BTW, please add a merged changelog entry to ChangeLog.tm-merge. No need
for a ChangeLog.tm, unless we don't merge, in case we're back to
ChangeLog.tm for a com
On 11/05/2011 03:09 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> [rth, see below]
>>
local_define_builtin ("__builtin_eh_pointer", ftype,
BUILT_IN_EH_POINTER,
"__builtin_eh_pointer", ECF_PURE | ECF_NOTHROW |
EC
On 11/06/2011 02:09 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > Richi, do you have any particular issue with the attribs.c change? Does
>> > this context resolve any questions you may have had?
> ... no, it just looked weird without seeing a use. Now, target specific
> attributes on a non-target specific bu
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>> Well - we usually don't grab bits off the tree nodes lightly. Especially
>> if
>> the cgraph seems to be more fit.
>>
>>> If this is a suggestion, I can put it on my laundry list of future things
>>> todo (after merge, 4.8?, etc).
>>
>> T
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> [rth, see below]
>
>>> Index: gcc/attribs.c
>>> ===
>>> --- gcc/attribs.c (.../trunk) (revision 180744)
>>> +++ gcc/attribs.c (.../branches/transactional-memory)
Well - we usually don't grab bits off the tree nodes lightly. Especially if
the cgraph seems to be more fit.
If this is a suggestion, I can put it on my laundry list of future things
todo (after merge, 4.8?, etc).
There are not many consumers of the flag, so fixing it shouldn't be hard.
For
[rth, see below]
Index: gcc/attribs.c
===
--- gcc/attribs.c (.../trunk) (revision 180744)
+++ gcc/attribs.c (.../branches/transactional-memory) (revision
180773)
@@ -166,7 +166,8 @@ init_attributes (void)
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> [rth, see below]
>
>>> local_define_builtin ("__builtin_eh_pointer", ftype,
>>> BUILT_IN_EH_POINTER,
>>> "__builtin_eh_pointer", ECF_PURE | ECF_NOTHROW |
>>> ECF_LEAF);
>>> + if (flag_tm)
>>> + apply_tm_attr (bui
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>>> Richi, if it's the use of the bit in the tree node that you're worried
>>> about,
>>> we could probably put it in cgraph_node.local instead. But we do need
>>> the
>>> knowledge.
>>
>> Yeah, I was worried about /* 1 bit left */ ;) Putti
[rth, see below]
local_define_builtin ("__builtin_eh_pointer", ftype, BUILT_IN_EH_POINTER,
"__builtin_eh_pointer", ECF_PURE | ECF_NOTHROW |
ECF_LEAF);
+ if (flag_tm)
+apply_tm_attr (builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EH_POINTER),
+ get_identifier ("t
Richi, if it's the use of the bit in the tree node that you're worried about,
we could probably put it in cgraph_node.local instead. But we do need the
knowledge.
Yeah, I was worried about /* 1 bit left */ ;) Putting it in the
cgraph node sounds more appealing
indeed.
Richi, is this a blo
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/04/2011 07:36 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 11/04/2011 03:36 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> + case GIMPLE_TRANSACTION:
> + return (weights->tm_cost
> + + estimate_num_insns_seq (gimple_transaction_
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/04/2011 04:53 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>> Why is it necessary to know whether a clone is a tm clone?
>>
>> How do you mean? First, there are a few pretty printing places where we
>> dump that a function is a clone. It is easy to
On 11/04/11 08:26, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
+/* GIMPLE_EH_ELSE must be the sole contents of
+ a GIMPLE_TRY_FINALLY node. For all normal exits from the try block,
+ we N_BODY is run; for all exception exits from the try block,
s/we //
Fixed
On 11/04/2011 07:36 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/04/2011 03:36 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
+case GIMPLE_TRANSACTION:
+ return (weights->tm_cost
+ + estimate_num_insns_seq (gimple_transaction_body (stmt),
+ weight
On 11/04/2011 03:36 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > +case GIMPLE_TRANSACTION:
>> > + return (weights->tm_cost
>> > + + estimate_num_insns_seq (gimple_transaction_body (stmt),
>> > + weights));
>> > +
> Huh, so we now have non-lowered gimpl
On 11/04/2011 04:53 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> Why is it necessary to know whether a clone is a tm clone?
>
> How do you mean? First, there are a few pretty printing places where we dump
> that a function is a clone. It is easy to debug dumps when you know which
> function is the clone and w
Richard, I am going to address your suggestions in pieces, with
individual patchsets, so we can tackle the less trivial bits in separate
patches. So don't worry, I'm not forgetting the rest your suggestions.
Below I will address what I fix with this patch.
+/* Nonzero in a FUNCTION_DECL mean
Hi,
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> +/* GIMPLE_EH_ELSE must be the sole contents of
> + a GIMPLE_TRY_FINALLY node. For all normal exits from the try block,
> + we N_BODY is run; for all exception exits from the try block,
s/we //
> +++ gcc/calls.c (.../branches/transacti
These are misc tree and gimple patches, which I consider front-ish-end
changes.
Index: gcc/tree.c
===
--- gcc/tree.c (.../trunk) (revision 180744)
+++ gcc/tree.c (.../branches/transactional-memory) (revision 180773)
@@ -95
21 matches
Mail list logo
