> Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 02:15:18AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > Actually what happens here is that CCP devirtualize by propagating the > > constructors and due to Richard's new code to drop OBJ_TYPE_REF we finally > > get > > a direct call. This is all good and desirable. > > > > I think good solution would be to fold further and inline the thunk > > adjustment, just like the type based devirtualization does. Even > > once I get far enough with my cgraph cleanuping project to make > > cgraph represent thunks nicely, we would win if in these cases ccp > > and other passes simply inlined the this adjustment, like we do with > > type based devirtualization already. > > > Martin, I guess it is matter of looking up the thunk info by > > associated cgraph node alias and extending fold_stmts of passes that > > now drop the OBJ_TYPE_REF wrappers? > > Well, if you have a cgraph node then yes. But if the method is > implemented in a different compilation unit you don't. And as I > already said today on IRC, I don't think it is possible to tell > whether a function is a thunk by looking at the decl alone (the front > hand has a flag for it as Jakub noted, though), let alone what kind of > thunk it is.
Well, you don't care about thunks resisting in other unit/partition... Honza > > The more I think about this the more I would also like to make thunks > as ordinary real functions as possible, with perhaps some kind of > totally opaque decls/cgraph_nodes for the most obscure types which > could be generated by assembly. > > Martin
