On 11/20/13 12:18, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/20/2013 01:40 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/20/13 09:47, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
* gimplify.h (gimplify_hasher : typed_free_remove, struct
gimplify_ctx):
Move to gimplify.c.
* gimplify.c (gimplify_hasher:typed_free_remove): Relocate here.
(struct gimplify_ctx): Relocate here and add 'malloced' field.
(gimplify_ctxp): Make static.
(ctx_pool, ctx_alloc, ctx_free): Manage a list of struct
gimplify_ctx.
(push_gimplify_context): Add default parameters and allocate a
struct from the pool.
(pop_gimplify_context): Free a struct back to the pool.
(gimplify_scan_omp_clauses, gimplify_omp_parallel,
gimplify_omp_task,
gimplify_omp_workshare, gimplify_transaction, gimplify_body): Don't
use a local 'struct gimplify_ctx'.
* gimplify-me.c (force_gimple_operand_1,
gimple_regimplify_operands):
Likewise.
* omp-low.c (lower_omp_sections, lower_omp_single, lower_omp_master,
lower_omp_ordered, lower_omp_critical, lower_omp_for,
create_task_copyfn, lower_omp_taskreg, lower_omp_target,
lower_omp_teams, execute_lower_omp): Likewise.
* gimple-fold.c (gimplify_and_update_call_from_tree): Likewise.
* tree-inline.c (optimize_inline_calls): Likewise.
I don't see the malloced field in gimplify_ctx. ChangeLog from prior
version?
Any reason not to use xcalloc to allocate & clear the memory in
ctx_alloc. Oh, I see, you want to clear the cached one too. Nevermind.
Should we ever release the list of ctx pointers?
There isn't much of a place to do it... I guess you could export a
free_gimplify_stack () routine and call at some point at the end of
finalize_compilation_unit() or something if we think its an issue. Maybe
the end of cgraphunit.c::expand_all_functions would be the best place...
it frees its own vector of nodes there as well, and by that point we
ought to be done. Or is there a better place?
So something like:
Index: cgraphunit.c
===================================================================
*** cgraphunit.c (revision 205035)
--- cgraphunit.c (working copy)
*************** expand_all_functions (void)
*** 1866,1871 ****
--- 1866,1872 ----
}
}
cgraph_process_new_functions ();
+ free_gimplify_stack ();
free (order);
and
*** gimplify.c 2013-11-20 14:12:57.803369359 -0500
--- G.c 2013-11-20 14:15:32.023013391 -0500
*************** ctx_free (struct gimplify_ctx *c)
*** 195,200 ****
--- 195,215 ----
ctx_pool = c;
}
+ /* Free allocated ctx stack memory. */
+
+ void
+ free_gimplify_stack (void)
+ {
+ struct gimplify_ctx *c;
+
+ while (c = ctx_pool)
+ {
+ ctx_pool = c->prev_context;
+ free (c);
+ }
+ }
+
+
So should we do that?
I think so. Otherwise we just end up adding to the memory leak noise
from valgrind :-0
And per Jakubs suggestion, I'll use XNEW... along with the changelog
oversite.
Assuming that all works, and no regressions, OK?
Yup.
jeff
