> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:50:22AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Don't we want to check opt_for_fn (node->decl, cp) instead and arrange
> > -fipa-cp
> > to be false when !optimize?
>
> I can easily imagine using
> !opt_for_fn (node->decl, optimize)
> || !opt_for_fn (node->decl, flag_ipa_cp)
> but guaranteeing flag_ipa_cp or flag_ipa_sra is never true for optimize == 0
> could be harder, what if something is built with -O0 -fipa-cp or
> __attribute__((optimize (0), "fipa-cp"))) or similar? Checking optimize
> value is among other things about the lack of vdef/vuse for !optimize.
I always tought it would be better to inform users that -O0 -fipa-cp is
broken combination of flags (but it seems our policy to not do that)
or just clear -fipa-cp while processing argument as we do for some
other contradicting combinations.
But yes, lets go with those two checks now, to do what gate does:
static bool
cgraph_gate_cp (void)
{
/* FIXME: We should remove the optimize check after we ensure we never run
IPA passes when not optimizing. */
return flag_ipa_cp && optimize;
}
Honza
>
> Jakub
