Hi, On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:14:31PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/24/14 14:19, Martin Jambor wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 03:35:01PM +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >>Hi Martin, > >> > >>>> > >>>>Well actually, I am not sure if we ever wanted to have a race condition > >>>>here. > >>>>Have you seen any impact of --param allow-store-data-races on any > >>>>benchmark? > >>> > >>>It's trivially to write one. The only pass that checks the param is > >>>tree loop invariant motion and it does that when it applies store-motion. > >>>Register pressure increase is increased by a factor of two. > >>> > >>>So I'd agree that we might want to disable this again for -Ofast. > >>> > >>>As nothing tests for the PACKED variants nor for the LOAD variant > >>>I'd rather remove those. Claiming we don't create races for those > >>>when you disable it via the param is simply not true. > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Richard. > >>> > >> > >>OK, please go ahead with your patch. > > > >Perhaps not unsurprisingly, the patch is very similar. Bootstrapped > >and tested on x86_64-linux. OK for trunk? > > > >Thanks, > > > >Martin > > > > > >2014-06-24 Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> > > > > * params.def (PARAM_ALLOW_LOAD_DATA_RACES) > > (PARAM_ALLOW_PACKED_LOAD_DATA_RACES) > > (PARAM_ALLOW_PACKED_STORE_DATA_RACES): Removed. > > (PARAM_ALLOW_STORE_DATA_RACES): Set default to zero. > > * opts.c (default_options_optimization): Set > > PARAM_ALLOW_STORE_DATA_RACES to one at -Ofast. > > * doc/invoke.texi (allow-load-data-races) > > (allow-packed-load-data-races, allow-packed-store-data-races): > > Removed. > > (allow-store-data-races): Document the new default. > > > >testsuite/ > > * g++.dg/simulate-thread/bitfields-2.C: Remove allow-load-data-races > > parameter. > > * g++.dg/simulate-thread/bitfields.C: Likewise. > > * gcc.dg/simulate-thread/strict-align-global.c: Remove > > allow-packed-store-data-races parameter. > > * gcc.dg/simulate-thread/subfields.c: Likewise. > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20050314-1.c: Set parameter allow-store-data-races > > to one. > Don't we want to deprecate, not remove the dead options? >
Is there a mechanism for deprecating parameters (I could not quickly find any) or do you mean to leave them there and only document them as deprecated? I am not really concerned how we deal with the unused parameters, removing or any form of deprecating is fine with me. Thanks, Martin
