PING^1
On 8/8/19 10:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 8/7/19 4:12 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:04 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/7/19 12:51 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 12:44:28PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>>> On 8/7/19 11:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>>> I think the simplest way to achieve this is to not copy, aka clear,
>>>>>> DECL_IS_OPERATOR_* when cloning and removing arguments
>>>>>> (cloning for a constant align argument should be OK for example, as is
>>>>>> for a constant address). Or simply always when cloning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, then I'm suggesting following tested patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>>>>
>>>> What about LAMBDA_FUNCTION, doesn't cloning which changes arguments in any
>>>> way invalidate that too, i.e. shouldn't it be just
>>>> FUNCTION_DECL_DECL_TYPE (new_node->decl) = NONE;
>>>
>>> Well, how are lambdas involved in the new/delete DCE here? Lambdas with
>>> removed
>>> arguments should not interfere here.
>>
>> But for coverage where we do
>>
>> gcov_write_unsigned (DECL_ARTIFICIAL (current_function_decl)
>> && !DECL_FUNCTION_VERSIONED (current_function_decl)
>> && !DECL_LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (current_function_decl));
>>
>> all clones should be considered artificial?
>
> Well, from coverage perspective most of them are fine.
>
>>
>> Anyway, your patch is OK, we can think about lambdas separately. Can you
>> simplify the DCE code after the patch?
>
> I installed the patch and I'm sending the follow up cleanup.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
> Ready to be installed?
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
>>
>>>> instead? On the other side, if the cloning doesn't change arguments in any
>>>> way, do we still want to clear those flags?
>>>
>>> Well, I would consider it safer to drop it always.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jakub
>>>>
>>>
>
