2014-09-23 23:55 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>:
> On 08/18/14 09:35, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> Here is an updated version.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ilya
>> --
>> 2014-08-15 Ilya Enkovich <ilya.enkov...@intel.com>
>>
>> * ipa-inline.c (early_inliner): Check edge has summary allocated.
>> * tree-inline.c: Include tree-chkp.h.
>> (declare_return_variable): Add arg holding
>> returned bounds slot. Create and initialize returned bounds var.
>> (remap_gimple_stmt): Handle returned bounds.
>> Return sequence of statements instead of a single statement.
>> (insert_init_stmt): Add declaration.
>> (remap_gimple_seq): Adjust to new remap_gimple_stmt signature.
>> (copy_bb): Adjust to changed return type of remap_gimple_stmt.
>> (expand_call_inline): Handle returned bounds. Add bounds copy
>> for generated mem to mem assignments.
>> * tree-inline.h (copy_body_data): Add fields retbnd and
>> assign_stmts.
>> * cgraph.c: Include tree-chkp.h.
>> (cgraph_redirect_edge_call_stmt_to_callee): Support
>> returned bounds.
>> * value-prof.c: Include tree-chkp.h.
>> (gimple_ic): Support returned bounds.
>
> OK for the trunk.
>
> FWIW, when building up gimple (or RTL if you were ever to do that one day),
> it's sometimes helpful to the reviewer to show what you're doing. For
> example, it took me a bit of time to realize that you needed the output from
> the direct call as an argument to the duplicated RETBND statement. It
> looked for quite a while like you'd simply made a mistake.
Got it. Will try to give more useful descriptions for my patches in the future.
>
> I'm a bit curious why you removed the original RETBND statement in
> value-prof, only to reinsert it. Is there some reason you needed to do
> that?
After call transformation we have smth like that:
if (<confition>)
new_lhs = direct_call (...);
else
old_lhs = call (...);
old_bnd = __builtin_retbnd (old_lhs);
Original retbnd statement removal + reinsertion is used to transform it into:
if (<confition>)
new_lhs = direct_call (...);
else
{
old_lhs = call (...);
old_bnd = __builtin_retbnd (old_lhs);
}
The rest of code inserts bounds for new_lhs and creates phi node for
bounds similar to what is done for call return value.
Thanks,
Ilya
>
> Richi -- in response to your comment about working around a bug earlier in
> this thread. As Ilya mentioned, he just cloned existing practice in that
> code for creating the copy of the call.
>
>
> Jeff
