Hi,
On Mon, Nov 08 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 at 23:24, Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> this patch introduces a helper function build_debug_expr_decl to build
>> DEBUG_EXPR_DECL tree nodes in the most common way and replaces with a
>> call of this function all code pieces which build such a DECL itself
>> and sets its mode to the TYPE_MODE of its type.
>>
>> There still remain 11 instances of open-coded creation of a
>> DEBUG_EXPR_DECL which set the mode of the DECL to something else. It
>> would probably be a good idea to figure out that has any effect and if
>> not, convert them to calls of build_debug_expr_decl too. But this
>> patch deliberately does not introduce any functional changes.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux, OK for trunk?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2021-11-08 Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz>
>>
>> * tree.h (build_debug_expr_decl): Declare.
>> * tree.c (build_debug_expr_decl): New function.
>> * cfgexpand.c (avoid_deep_ter_for_debug): Use build_debug_expr_decl
>> instead of building a DEBUG_EXPR_DECL.
>> * ipa-param-manipulation.c
>> (ipa_param_body_adjustments::prepare_debug_expressions): Likewise.
>> * omp-simd-clone.c (ipa_simd_modify_stmt_ops): Likewise.
>> * tree-ssa-ccp.c (optimize_atomic_bit_test_and): Likewise.
>> * tree-ssa-phiopt.c (spaceship_replacement): Likewise.
>> * tree-ssa-reassoc.c (make_new_ssa_for_def): Likewise.
[...]
>> diff --git a/gcc/tree.c b/gcc/tree.c
>> index 7bfd64160f4..845228a055b 100644
>> --- a/gcc/tree.c
>> +++ b/gcc/tree.c
>> @@ -5280,6 +5280,18 @@ build_decl (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree
>> name,
>> return t;
>> }
>>
>> +/* Create and return a DEBUG_EXPR_DECL node of the given TYPE. */
>> +
>> +tree
>> +build_debug_expr_decl (tree type)
> Hi, sorry to nitpick, but would it be slightly better to use
> const_tree type instead ?
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
>> +{
>> + tree vexpr = make_node (DEBUG_EXPR_DECL);
>> + DECL_ARTIFICIAL (vexpr) = 1;
>> + TREE_TYPE (vexpr) = type;
I like the idea but the assignment to TREE_TYPE above could not be done
without discarding the const qualifier somehow. Do we really want to do
that? Do we have some canonical way of doing that? (I searched only
for a minute but did not find any.)
Thanks,
Martin
