Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-06-01 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Michael Matz writes: >> Stores are better than builtin functions here, so as to not artificially >> take addresses of the decls in question. > > For the record, you wouldn't need to take the address if you had an > internal function (int

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-06-01 Thread Richard Sandiford
Michael Matz writes: > Stores are better than builtin functions here, so as to not artificially > take addresses of the decls in question. For the record, you wouldn't need to take the address if you had an internal function (internal-fn.def) of the form: MEM_REF [] = internal_fn_that_retur

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-27 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Fri, 27 May 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 03:59:47PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > > On Thu, 26 May 2011, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > > on IRC we discussed about this, here's the RFC patch.  It bootstraps > > > > and causes some minor regressions most probably due t

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-27 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 03:59:47PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > On Thu, 26 May 2011, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > on IRC we discussed about this, here's the RFC patch.  It bootstraps > > > and causes some minor regressions most probably due to some missing > > > sprinkled checks for the special c

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-27 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Thu, 26 May 2011, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > on IRC we discussed about this, here's the RFC patch.  It bootstraps > > and causes some minor regressions most probably due to some missing > > sprinkled checks for the special clobber insns and sometimes due to > > having to adjust some reg

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-27 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Thu, 26 May 2011, Martin Jambor wrote: > I assume DSE does not remove the stores as that would defeat the purpose > of the patch. Right. (The volatileness currently prevents the removal). > If after optimizations such as SRA, these special stores are the only > statements accessing th

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-26 Thread Martin Jambor
Hi, On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 03:43:45PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > Index: tree-sra.c > === > --- tree-sra.c.orig 2011-05-26 14:15:01.0 +0200 > +++ tree-sra.c2011-05-26 14:15:41.0 +0200 > @@ -1041,6 +1041,11

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-26 Thread Steven Bosscher
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > on IRC we discussed about this, here's the RFC patch.  It bootstraps and > causes some minor regressions most probably due to some missing sprinkled > checks for the special clobber insns and sometimes due to having to adjust > some regexps.

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-26 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 03:43:45PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: >> --- tree-stdarg.c.orig        2011-05-26 14:15:01.0 +0200 >> +++ tree-stdarg.c     2011-05-26 14:15:41.0 +0200 >> @@ -872,8 +872,12 @@ execute_optimize_stdarg (v

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-26 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 03:43:45PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > --- tree-stdarg.c.orig2011-05-26 14:15:01.0 +0200 > +++ tree-stdarg.c 2011-05-26 14:15:41.0 +0200 > @@ -872,8 +872,12 @@ execute_optimize_stdarg (void) > if (get_gimple_rhs_class (gimple_assi