On Mon, 11 Mar 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:31:51AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Mar 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 12:25:42PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > Ideally we?d clear TREE_ADDRESSABLE but set DECL_NOT_GIMPLE_REG, > > > > I think the analysis where we check the base would be a more > > > > appropriate place to enforce that. > > > > > > So like this? > > > > Hm, I was thinking of non_rewritable_lvalue_p/non_rewritable_mem_ref_base > > though that requires duplicating, so I guess handling in maybe_optimize_var > > would work. > > I was considering it, but it looked like a waste to me, using bitmap bits > for something that is always the case, we don't want to rewrite any > large/huge _BitInt to SSA form after the lowering, not just some of them. > > > I do now wonder whether setting DECL_NOT_GIMPLE_REG_P in bitfield > > lowering would prevail? > > Guess I can certainly try to set DECL_NOT_GIMPLE_REG_P on the large/huge > _BitInt PARM_DECLs/RESULT_DECLs during bitint lowering even when they are > TREE_ADDRESSABLE at that point; the VAR_DECLs have array types of limbs and > so shouldn't be a problem.
Hmm, looking I think we're going to clear DECL_NOT_GIMPLE_REG_P since we still have is_gimple_reg_type. > > (sorry for approving the earlier patch now, I was too quick and didn't > > remember the discussion) > > Sorry, already committed, I can revert or incrementally adjust. No problem, I think both patches are OK, the 2nd maybe a bit better for alias analysis. Richard.
