Patchwork Remove unused pass_update_address_taken

login
register
mail settings
Submitter David Malcolm
Date June 5, 2013, 2:48 a.m.
Message ID <1370400525.20213.10.camel@surprise>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/248879/
State New
Headers show

Comments

David Malcolm - June 5, 2013, 2:48 a.m.
If I'm reading things right, pass_update_address_taken is never actually
used.

Deleting it, I was able to still successfully bootstrap on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (using gcc-4.7.2-2.fc17.x86_64).

The use of the pass appears to have been removed in:
  http://gcc.gnu.org/r164525

Should I remove it from trunk?

2013-06-05  David Malcolm  <dmalcolm@redhat.com>

	* tree-pass.h (pass_update_address_taken): Remove.
	* tree-ssa.c (pass_update_address_taken): Remove.
Richard Guenther - June 5, 2013, 8:33 a.m.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:48 AM, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
> If I'm reading things right, pass_update_address_taken is never actually
> used.
>
> Deleting it, I was able to still successfully bootstrap on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (using gcc-4.7.2-2.fc17.x86_64).
>
> The use of the pass appears to have been removed in:
>   http://gcc.gnu.org/r164525
>
> Should I remove it from trunk?

I haven't settled for whether the current scheme of using TODOs is really
the best thing yet...  (it probably is not).  So I'd rather keep the pass
around.

Thanks,
Richard.

> 2013-06-05  David Malcolm  <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
>
>         * tree-pass.h (pass_update_address_taken): Remove.
>         * tree-ssa.c (pass_update_address_taken): Remove.
>
David Malcolm - June 5, 2013, 9:54 a.m.
On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 10:33 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:48 AM, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
> > If I'm reading things right, pass_update_address_taken is never actually
> > used.
> >
> > Deleting it, I was able to still successfully bootstrap on
> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (using gcc-4.7.2-2.fc17.x86_64).
> >
> > The use of the pass appears to have been removed in:
> >   http://gcc.gnu.org/r164525
> >
> > Should I remove it from trunk?
> 
> I haven't settled for whether the current scheme of using TODOs is really
> the best thing yet...  (it probably is not).  So I'd rather keep the pass
> around.

Fair enough - thanks.

Patch

Index: gcc/tree-pass.h
===================================================================
--- gcc/tree-pass.h	(revision 199679)
+++ gcc/tree-pass.h	(working copy)
@@ -487,7 +487,6 @@ 
 extern struct gimple_opt_pass pass_release_ssa_names;
 extern struct gimple_opt_pass pass_early_inline;
 extern struct gimple_opt_pass pass_inline_parameters;
-extern struct gimple_opt_pass pass_update_address_taken;
 extern struct gimple_opt_pass pass_convert_switch;
 
 /* The root of the compilation pass tree, once constructed.  */
Index: gcc/tree-ssa.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/tree-ssa.c	(revision 199679)
+++ gcc/tree-ssa.c	(working copy)
@@ -2129,23 +2129,3 @@ 
   BITMAP_FREE (suitable_for_renaming);
   timevar_pop (TV_ADDRESS_TAKEN);
 }
-
-struct gimple_opt_pass pass_update_address_taken =
-{
- {
-  GIMPLE_PASS,
-  "addressables",			/* name */
-  OPTGROUP_NONE,                        /* optinfo_flags */
-  NULL,					/* gate */
-  NULL,					/* execute */
-  NULL,					/* sub */
-  NULL,					/* next */
-  0,					/* static_pass_number */
-  TV_ADDRESS_TAKEN,			/* tv_id */
-  PROP_ssa,				/* properties_required */
-  0,					/* properties_provided */
-  0,					/* properties_destroyed */
-  0,					/* todo_flags_start */
-  TODO_update_address_taken             /* todo_flags_finish */
- }
-};