On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, David Malcolm wrote:
I was experimenting with optimizing away matching malloc/free pairs,
moving the allocation to either the stack, or to a thread-local
obstack, under certain conditions, or to hoist allocations out of
loops.
I didn't get any significant wins, but much of
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 08:56:44AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/29/2017 01:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 09:11:00PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > On 11/27/2017 02:22 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
> > > > Thanks for all the reviews! I’ve revised the patch, the
> > > >
On 11/29/2017 01:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 09:11:00PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 11/27/2017 02:22 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
>>> Thanks for all the reviews! I’ve revised the patch, the
>>> operator_delete_flag is now stored in tree_decl_with_vis (there already
>>>
On 11/28/2017 09:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/27/2017 02:22 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
>> Thanks for all the reviews! I’ve revised the patch, the
>> operator_delete_flag is now stored in tree_decl_with_vis (there
>> already seem to be some FUNCTION_DECL-flags in there). I’ve also added
>> the
On November 29, 2017 4:56:44 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor
wrote:
>On 11/29/2017 01:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 09:11:00PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 11/27/2017 02:22 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
Thanks for all the reviews! I’ve revised the patch, the
>operator_de
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:15 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 08:56 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 11/29/2017 01:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 09:11:00PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> > > On 11/27/2017 02:22 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
>> > > > Thanks for
On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 08:56 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/29/2017 01:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 09:11:00PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > On 11/27/2017 02:22 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
> > > > Thanks for all the reviews! I’ve revised the patch, the
> > > > operato
On 11/29/2017 01:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 09:11:00PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/27/2017 02:22 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
Thanks for all the reviews! I’ve revised the patch, the operator_delete_flag is
now stored in tree_decl_with_vis (there already seem to be so
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 09:11:00PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/27/2017 02:22 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
> > Thanks for all the reviews! I’ve revised the patch, the
> > operator_delete_flag is now stored in tree_decl_with_vis (there already
> > seem to be some FUNCTION_DECL-flags in there).
On 11/27/2017 02:22 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
Thanks for all the reviews! I’ve revised the patch, the operator_delete_flag is
now stored in tree_decl_with_vis (there already seem to be some
FUNCTION_DECL-flags in there). I’ve also added the option -fallocation-dce to
disable this optimization.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:52:12PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 11/27/2017 02:22 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
> >> Thanks for all the reviews! I’ve revised the patch, the
> >> operator_delete_flag is now stored in tree_decl_with_vis (there al
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/27/2017 02:22 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
>> Thanks for all the reviews! I’ve revised the patch, the operator_delete_flag
>> is now stored in tree_decl_with_vis (there already seem to be some
>> FUNCTION_DECL-flags in there). I’ve also added
On 11/27/2017 02:22 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
> Thanks for all the reviews! I’ve revised the patch, the operator_delete_flag
> is now stored in tree_decl_with_vis (there already seem to be some
> FUNCTION_DECL-flags in there). I’ve also added the option -fallocation-dce to
> disable this optimiz
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:22:52AM +0100, Dominik Inführ wrote:
> @@ -4195,8 +4198,10 @@ cxx_init_decl_processing (void)
> deltype = cp_build_type_attribute_variant (void_ftype_ptr_size,
> extvisattr);
> deltype = build_exception_variant
Thanks for all the reviews! I’ve revised the patch, the operator_delete_flag is
now stored in tree_decl_with_vis (there already seem to be some
FUNCTION_DECL-flags in there). I’ve also added the option -fallocation-dce to
disable this optimization. It bootstraps and no regressions on aarch64 and
(please try to convince your mailer to use something other than
Content-Type: application/octet-stream for a patch)
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Dominik Inführ wrote:
this patch tries to extend tree-ssa-dce.c to remove unnecessary
new/delete-pairs (it already does that for malloc/free). Clang does it
On 11/22/2017 03:31 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/21/2017 04:14 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this patch tries to extend tree-ssa-dce.c to remove unnecessary
>>> new/delete-pairs (it already does that for malloc/free). Clang does it too
>>> a
On 11/22/2017 08:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Anything else can be done as followup and need not be done as part of
this patch. An enum for
this would work I guess.
I've added this to https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ImprovementProjects:
Compress DECL flags
tree-core defines a number of bit fla
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 11/21/2017 06:14 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> this patch tries to extend tree-ssa-dce.c to remove unnecessary
>> new/delete-pairs (it already does that for malloc/free). Clang does it too
>> and it seems to be allowed by
>> h
On 11/21/2017 06:14 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
Hi,
this patch tries to extend tree-ssa-dce.c to remove unnecessary
new/delete-pairs (it already does that for malloc/free). Clang does it too and
it seems to be allowed by
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3664.html. I’ve
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:30:29AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> --- a/gcc/tree-core.h
> +++ b/gcc/tree-core.h
> @@ -1787,7 +1787,9 @@ struct GTY(()) tree_function_decl {
>unsigned has_debug_args_flag : 1;
>unsigned tm_clone_flag : 1;
>unsigned versioned_function : 1;
> - /* No bits l
On Tue, Nov 21 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/21/2017 04:14 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> this patch tries to extend tree-ssa-dce.c to remove unnecessary
>> new/delete-pairs (it already does that for malloc/free). Clang does it too
>> and it seems to be allowed by
>> http://www.open-std
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Dominik Inführ
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this patch tries to extend tree-ssa-dce.c to remove unnecessary
> new/delete-pairs (it already does that for malloc/free). Clang does it too
> and it seems to be allowed by
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/201
On 11/21/2017 10:30 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, I know that it’s too late for GCC 8. I wanted to get
> some feedback on this patch, so I could address all issues until GCC 9
> development starts. But I suppose it is better to just post it again later.
The problem is most fol
Thanks for the reply, I know that it’s too late for GCC 8. I wanted to get some
feedback on this patch, so I could address all issues until GCC 9 development
starts. But I suppose it is better to just post it again later.
Dominik
> On 21 Nov 2017, at 18:09, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 11/21/2017 0
On 11/21/2017 04:14 AM, Dominik Inführ wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this patch tries to extend tree-ssa-dce.c to remove unnecessary
> new/delete-pairs (it already does that for malloc/free). Clang does it too
> and it seems to be allowed by
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3664.ht
Hi,
this patch tries to extend tree-ssa-dce.c to remove unnecessary
new/delete-pairs (it already does that for malloc/free). Clang does it too and
it seems to be allowed by
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3664.html. I’ve
bootstrapped/regtested on aarch64-linux and x86_
27 matches
Mail list logo
