On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:40 PM Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:15:55PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.ibm.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Once a user-created non-dependent pointer is assigned to, it is OK to > > > break the dependency. > > > > Ok, that's good. > > > > > > Or am I missing the point here? > > > > I was just trying to make sure we were on the same page. I wonder if > > marking this volatile would be sufficient for prototyping. I suspect > > we would need another flag somewhere which someone with gimple > > knowledge might be able to help us with. > > I expect that marking it as volatile would do the trick. ;-) > > Thanx, Paul > So, marking this pointer as volatile will not allow the compiler to modify/optimize the statements, the pointer is appearing in. And we don't need to push any other code inside any of the passes. Due to this, we want to automatically say those dependent pointers are volatile and introduce a new flag for this. Am I getting you guys correctly? Kindly, let me know? Akshat > > > regards > > Ramana > > > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > > Ramana > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Does this sounds like a workable plan for ? Let me know your > thoughts. If this sounds good then, we can do this for all the > optimizations that may kill the dependencies at somepoint. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -Akshat > > > > > > > > > > >
