On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 9:52 AM Christophe Lyon < christophe.lyon....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 4:07 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches < > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> On 7/30/21 9:06 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> > On 7/27/21 2:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> >> Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575690.html >> >> >> >> Are there any other suggestions or comments or is the latest revision >> >> okay to commit? >> > >> > OK. >> >> I had to make a few more adjustments to fix up code that's snuck >> in since I last tested the patch. I committed r12-2776 after >> retesting on x86_64-linux. >> >> With the cleanup out of the way I'll resubmit the copy ctor patch >> next. >> >> > Hi Martin, > > Your patch breaks the aarch64 build: > > /tmp/1784440_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins.cc: > In function 'void aarch64_sve::register_svpattern()': > /tmp/1784440_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins.cc:3502:27: > error: use of deleted function 'vec<T>::vec(auto_vec<T, N>&) [with long > unsigned int N = 32ul; > T = std::pair<const char*, int>]' > "svpattern", values); > ^ > In file included from > /tmp/1784440_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/hash-table.h:248:0, > from > /tmp/1784440_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/coretypes.h:480, > from > /tmp/1784440_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins.cc:24: > /tmp/1784440_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/vec.h:1455:3: > error: declared here > vec (auto_vec<T, N> &) = delete; > ^ > /tmp/1784440_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins.cc: > In function 'void aarch64_sve::register_svprfop()': > /tmp/1784440_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins.cc:3516:30: > error: use of deleted function 'vec<T>::vec(auto_vec<T, N>&) [with long > unsigned int N = 16ul; > T = std::pair<const char*, int>]' > "svprfop", values); > ^ > In file included from > /tmp/1784440_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/hash-table.h:248:0, > from > /tmp/1784440_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/coretypes.h:480, > from > /tmp/1784440_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins.cc:24: > /tmp/1784440_6.tmpdir/aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/vec.h:1455:3: > error: declared here > vec (auto_vec<T, N> &) = delete; > ^ > > Can you check? > > Thanks, > This has now been fixed by Tamar, thanks! Christophe > > Christophe > >> >> Martin >> >> > >> >> On 7/20/21 12:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> >>> On 7/14/21 10:23 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >>>> On 7/14/21 10:46 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> >>>>> On 7/13/21 9:39 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >>>>>> On 7/13/21 4:02 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 7/13/21 12:37 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On 7/13/21 10:08 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 12:02, Richard Biener wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Somebody with more C++ knowledge than me needs to approve the >> >>>>>>>>>> vec.h changes - I don't feel competent to assess all effects >> >>>>>>>>>> of the change. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> They look OK to me except for: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -extern vnull vNULL; >> >>>>>>>>> +static constexpr vnull vNULL{ }; >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Making vNULL have static linkage can make it an ODR violation >> >>>>>>>>> to use >> >>>>>>>>> vNULL in templates and inline functions, because different >> >>>>>>>>> instantiations will refer to a different "vNULL" in each >> >>>>>>>>> translation >> >>>>>>>>> unit. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> The ODR says this is OK because it's a literal constant with the >> >>>>>>>> same value (6.2/12.2.1). >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> But it would be better without the explicit 'static'; then in >> >>>>>>>> C++17 it's implicitly inline instead of static. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I'll remove the static. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> But then, do we really want to keep vNULL at all? It's a weird >> >>>>>>>> blurring of the object/pointer boundary that is also dependent >> >>>>>>>> on vec being a thin wrapper around a pointer. In almost all >> >>>>>>>> cases it can be replaced with {}; one exception is == >> >>>>>>>> comparison, where it seems to be testing that the embedded >> >>>>>>>> pointer is null, which is a weird thing to want to test. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The one use case I know of for vNULL where I can't think of >> >>>>>>> an equally good substitute is in passing a vec as an argument by >> >>>>>>> value. The only way to do that that I can think of is to name >> >>>>>>> the full vec type (i.e., the specialization) which is more typing >> >>>>>>> and less generic than vNULL. I don't use vNULL myself so I >> wouldn't >> >>>>>>> miss this trick if it were to be removed but others might feel >> >>>>>>> differently. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> In C++11, it can be replaced by {} in that context as well. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Cool. I thought I'd tried { } here but I guess not. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> If not, I'm all for getting rid of vNULL but with over 350 uses >> >>>>>>> of it left, unless there's some clever trick to make the removal >> >>>>>>> (mostly) effortless and seamless, I'd much rather do it >> >>>>>>> independently >> >>>>>>> of this initial change. I also don't know if I can commit to >> making >> >>>>>>> all this cleanup. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I already have a patch to replace all but one use of vNULL, but >> >>>>>> I'll hold off with it until after your patch. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> So what's the next step? The patch only removes a few uses of vNULL >> >>>>> but doesn't add any. Is it good to go as is (without the static and >> >>>>> with the additional const changes Richard suggested)? This patch is >> >>>>> attached to my reply to Richard: >> >>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575199.html >> >>>> >> >>>> As Richard wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> The pieces where you change vec<> passing to const vec<>& and the >> few >> >>>>> where you change vec<> * to const vec<> * are OK - this should make >> >>>>> the >> >>>>> rest a smaller piece to review. >> >>>> >> >>>> Please go ahead and apply those changes and send a new patch with >> >>>> the remainder of the changes. >> >>> >> >>> I have just pushed r12-2418: >> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2021-July/350886.html >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> A few other comments: >> >>>> >> >>>>> - omp_declare_simd_clauses); >> >>>>> + *omp_declare_simd_clauses); >> >>>> >> >>>> Instead of doing this indirection in all of the callers, let's >> >>>> change c_finish_omp_declare_simd to take a pointer as well, and do >> >>>> the indirection in initializing a reference variable at the top of >> >>>> the function. >> >>> >> >>> Okay. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> + sched_init_luids (bbs.to_vec ()); >> >>>>> + haifa_init_h_i_d (bbs.to_vec ()); >> >>>> >> >>>> Why are these to_vec changes needed when you are also changing the >> >>>> functions to take const&? >> >>> >> >>> Calling to_vec() here isn't necessary so I've removed it. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> - vec<tree> checks = LOOP_VINFO_CHECK_NONZERO (loop_vinfo); >> >>>>> + vec<tree> checks = LOOP_VINFO_CHECK_NONZERO (loop_vinfo).to_vec >> (); >> >>>> >> >>>> Why not use a reference here and in other similar spots? >> >>> >> >>> Sure, that works too. >> >>> >> >>> Attached is what's left of the original changes now that r12-2418 >> >>> has been applied. >> >>> >> >>> Martin >> >> >> > >> >>