On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote: > On 12/07/15 17:45, Tom de Vries wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> this patch series implements the forbidding of multi-step garbage >> collection liveness dependencies between caches. >> >> The first four patches downgrade 3 caches to non-cache, since they >> introduce multi-step dependencies. This allows us to decouple: >> - establishing a policy for multi-step dependencies in caches, and >> - fixing issues that allow us to use these 3 as caches again. >> >> 1. Downgrade debug_args_for_decl to non-cache >> 2. Add struct tree_decl_map_hasher >> 3. Downgrade debug_expr_for_decl to non-cache >> 4. Downgrade value_expr_for_decl to non-cache >> 5. Don't mark live recursively in gt_cleare_cache >> >> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64, with ENABLE_CHECKING. >> >> I'll post the patches in response to this email. >> > > This patch: > - disables the recursive marking of cache entries during the cache-clear > phase > - Adds ENABLE_CHECKING code to check that we don't end up with partially > dead cache entries > > OK for trunk?
It seems your docs do not match the implementation with regarding to keep_cache_entry returning -1. It looks like -1 is a "I do not know" value which IMHO is bad to have. I miss documentation of the ggc_marked_nonkey_p function and what it is supposed to return. As the function seems to be manually implemented it also looks error-prone - I suppose gengtype could generate those. +#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING + gcc_assert (!ggc_marked_p (*iter)); +#endif gcc_checking_assert () +#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING + gcc_assert (H::ggc_marked_nonkey_p (*iter)); +#endif likewise. Rather than conditionalizing build of the ggc_marked_nonkey_p functions can you mark them UNUSED (I suppose you only avoid defined-but-not-used Werror errors)? We try to get away from conditional compilation. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > - Tom >
