> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:52:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 09:39:42AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > What about the:
> > > > > I wonder if the nonfreeing_call_p function shouldn't be moved
> > > > > elsewhere
> > > > > though (suggestion where), so that gimple.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:52:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 09:39:42AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > What about the:
> > > > I wonder if the nonfreeing_call_p function shouldn't be moved elsewhere
> > > > though (suggestion where), so that gimple.c doesn't need the cg
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 09:39:42AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> What about the:
> > > I wonder if the nonfreeing_call_p function shouldn't be moved elsewhere
> > > though (suggestion where), so that gimple.c doesn't need the cgraph
> > > includes.
> question though (maybe it is more on Richard)?
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:11:08AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
>> Actually I think you want to do this for can_throw, too.
>> We probably do not have throwing internal calls, but it is better to be safe.
>
> I'll leave that change to
Hi!
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:11:08AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Actually I think you want to do this for can_throw, too.
> We probably do not have throwing internal calls, but it is better to be safe.
I'll leave that change to you ;), as I said in my last mail, it isn't
immediately clear to m
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:11:08AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > + else if (gimple_call_internal_p (call) && !nonfreeing_call_p (call))
> > +local->can_free = true;
>
> Actually I think you want to do this for can_throw, too.
> We probably do not have throwing internal calls, but it is better
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 02:49:30PM +0400, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
> > We used this code for IPA propagation of nonfreeing_call_p. It implemented
> > with a separate pass, but it probably could be propagated in some existing
> > one. This analysis doesn't seem to be costly thought, we didn't see an
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 02:49:30PM +0400, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
> We used this code for IPA propagation of nonfreeing_call_p. It implemented
> with a separate pass, but it probably could be propagated in some existing
> one. This analysis doesn't seem to be costly thought, we didn't see any
> sign
