Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-06-01 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Michael Matz writes: >> Stores are better than builtin functions here, so as to not artificially >> take addresses of the decls in question. > > For the record, you wouldn't need to take the address if you had an > internal function (int

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-06-01 Thread Richard Sandiford
Michael Matz writes: > Stores are better than builtin functions here, so as to not artificially > take addresses of the decls in question. For the record, you wouldn't need to take the address if you had an internal function (internal-fn.def) of the form: MEM_REF [] = internal_fn_that_retur

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-27 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Fri, 27 May 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 03:59:47PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > > On Thu, 26 May 2011, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > > on IRC we discussed about this, here's the RFC patch.  It bootstraps > > > > and causes some minor regressions most probably due t

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-27 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 03:59:47PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > On Thu, 26 May 2011, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > on IRC we discussed about this, here's the RFC patch.  It bootstraps > > > and causes some minor regressions most probably due to some missing > > > sprinkled checks for the special c

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-27 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Thu, 26 May 2011, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > on IRC we discussed about this, here's the RFC patch.  It bootstraps > > and causes some minor regressions most probably due to some missing > > sprinkled checks for the special clobber insns and sometimes due to > > having to adjust some reg

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-27 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Thu, 26 May 2011, Martin Jambor wrote: > I assume DSE does not remove the stores as that would defeat the purpose > of the patch. Right. (The volatileness currently prevents the removal). > If after optimizations such as SRA, these special stores are the only > statements accessing th

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-26 Thread Martin Jambor
Hi, On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 03:43:45PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > Index: tree-sra.c > === > --- tree-sra.c.orig 2011-05-26 14:15:01.0 +0200 > +++ tree-sra.c2011-05-26 14:15:41.0 +0200 > @@ -1041,6 +1041,11

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-26 Thread Steven Bosscher
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > on IRC we discussed about this, here's the RFC patch.  It bootstraps and > causes some minor regressions most probably due to some missing sprinkled > checks for the special clobber insns and sometimes due to having to adjust > some regexps.

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-26 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 03:43:45PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: >> --- tree-stdarg.c.orig        2011-05-26 14:15:01.0 +0200 >> +++ tree-stdarg.c     2011-05-26 14:15:41.0 +0200 >> @@ -872,8 +872,12 @@ execute_optimize_stdarg (v

Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-26 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 03:43:45PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > --- tree-stdarg.c.orig2011-05-26 14:15:01.0 +0200 > +++ tree-stdarg.c 2011-05-26 14:15:41.0 +0200 > @@ -872,8 +872,12 @@ execute_optimize_stdarg (void) > if (get_gimple_rhs_class (gimple_assi

RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths

2011-05-26 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, on IRC we discussed about this, here's the RFC patch. It bootstraps and causes some minor regressions most probably due to some missing sprinkled checks for the special clobber insns and sometimes due to having to adjust some regexps. Anyway, stack slot sharing is currently using the heur