On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > I'd say removing the GTY(()) on a struct that is never GC allocated > nor interesting to PCH is obvious, the removal of TODO_ggc_collect is not > so. Right now it is set by passes that expect to potentially > create enough GC garbage that a collection might be desirable. > You haven't explained why you think it is the case of ree.c.
You're right, I should have explained it. Perhaps somewhere during the development of ree.c struct ext_cand was GGC-allocated, in which case TODO_ggc_collect would make sense, to collect the ext_cands (there can be many of them). But since ext_cands are not GGC-allocated, the only garbage "produced" by ree.c is when it removes redundant extensions (via delete_insn). This is typically only a very small percentage of the instructions, so there isn't a lot of garbage produced. I'll leave the TODO in place, and only remove the GTY marker from struct ext_cand. Ciao! Steven
