[5/5] Postpone expanding va_arg until pass_stdarg

On 23-02-15 11:09, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 23-02-15 09:26, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>>> Btw, I'm wondering if as run-time optimization we can tentatively set
>>> PROP_gimple_lva at the start of the gimple pass, and unset it in
>>> gimplify_va_arg_expr. That way we would avoid the loop in
>>> expand_ifn_va_arg_1 (over all bbs and gimples) in functions without
>>> va_arg.
>>
>> That makes sense.
>>
>
> I'll put this follow-up patch through testing.

Bootstrapped and reg-tested as before together with the rest of the patch series.

OK for stage1?

Thanks,
- Tom

[stage1 ping]
[was: Postpone expanding va_arg until pass_stdarg]
On 24-02-15 07:48, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 23-02-15 11:09, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 23-02-15 09:26, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
>>>> Btw, I'm wondering if as run-time optimization we can tentatively set
>>>> PROP_gimple_lva at the start of the gimple pass, and unset it in
>>>> gimplify_va_arg_expr. That way we would avoid the loop in
>>>> expand_ifn_va_arg_1 (over all bbs and gimples) in functions without
>>>> va_arg.
>>>
>>> That makes sense.
>>>
>>
>> I'll put this follow-up patch through testing.
>
> Bootstrapped and reg-tested as before together with the rest of the patch series.
>
> OK for stage1?
>

Ping.

Thanks,
- Tom

> 0006-Set-PROP_gimple_lva-for-functions-without-IFN_VA_ARG.patch
>
>
> 2015-02-23  Tom de Vries<tom@codesourcery.com>
>
> 	* gimplify.c (gimplify_function_tree): Tentatively set PROP_gimple_lva
> 	in cfun->curr_properties.
> 	(gimplify_va_arg_expr): Clear PROP_gimple_lva in cfun->curr_properties
> 	if we generate an IFN_VA_ARG.
> 	* tree-inline.c (expand_call_inline): Reset PROP_gimple_lva in dest
> 	function if PROP_gimple_lva is not set in src function.
> ---
>   gcc/gimplify.c    | 10 +++++++++-
>   gcc/tree-inline.c |  8 ++++++++
>   2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/gimplify.c b/gcc/gimplify.c
> index 8ac6a35..497e2fa 100644
> --- a/gcc/gimplify.c
> +++ b/gcc/gimplify.c
> @@ -9218,6 +9218,10 @@ gimplify_function_tree (tree fndecl)
>     else
>       push_struct_function (fndecl);
>
> +  /* Tentatively set PROP_gimple_lva here, and reset it in gimplify_va_arg_expr
> +     if necessary.  */
> +  cfun->curr_properties |= PROP_gimple_lva;
> +
>     for (parm = DECL_ARGUMENTS (fndecl); parm ; parm = DECL_CHAIN (parm))
>       {
>         /* Preliminarily mark non-addressed complex variables as eligible
> @@ -9312,7 +9316,7 @@ gimplify_function_tree (tree fndecl)
>       }
>
>     DECL_SAVED_TREE (fndecl) = NULL_TREE;
> -  cfun->curr_properties = PROP_gimple_any;
> +  cfun->curr_properties |= PROP_gimple_any;
>
>     pop_cfun ();
>   }
> @@ -9431,6 +9435,10 @@ gimplify_va_arg_expr (tree *expr_p, gimple_seq *pre_p,
>     tag = build_int_cst (build_pointer_type (type), 0);
>     *expr_p = build_call_expr_internal_loc (loc, IFN_VA_ARG, type, 2, ap, tag);
>
> +  /* Clear the tentatively set PROP_gimple_lva, to indicate that IFN_VA_ARG
> +     needs to be expanded.  */
> +  cfun->curr_properties &= ~PROP_gimple_lva;
> +
>     return GS_OK;
>   }
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-inline.c b/gcc/tree-inline.c
> index d8abe03..7dfef4f 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-inline.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-inline.c
> @@ -4524,6 +4524,14 @@ expand_call_inline (basic_block bb, gimple stmt, copy_body_data *id)
>     id->src_cfun = DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (fn);
>     id->call_stmt = stmt;
>
> +  /* If the the src function contains an IFN_VA_ARG, then so will the dst
> +     function after inlining.  */
> +  if ((id->src_cfun->curr_properties & PROP_gimple_lva) == 0)
> +    {
> +      struct function *dst_cfun = DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (id->dst_fn);
> +      dst_cfun->curr_properties &= ~PROP_gimple_lva;
> +    }
> +
>     gcc_assert (!id->src_cfun->after_inlining);
>
>     id->entry_bb = bb;
> -- 1.9.1
>

[stage1 ping^2]
On 10-03-15 16:31, Tom de Vries wrote:
> [stage1 ping]
> [was: Postpone expanding va_arg until pass_stdarg]
> On 24-02-15 07:48, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 23-02-15 11:09, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> On 23-02-15 09:26, Michael Matz wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Btw, I'm wondering if as run-time optimization we can tentatively set
>>>>> PROP_gimple_lva at the start of the gimple pass, and unset it in
>>>>> gimplify_va_arg_expr. That way we would avoid the loop in
>>>>> expand_ifn_va_arg_1 (over all bbs and gimples) in functions without
>>>>> va_arg.
>>>>
>>>> That makes sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll put this follow-up patch through testing.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and reg-tested as before together with the rest of the patch series.
>>
>> OK for stage1?
>>
>
> Ping.
>

Ping again.

Patch originally posted at: 
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg01402.html .

Thanks,
- Tom

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:

> [stage1 ping^2]
> On 10-03-15 16:31, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > [stage1 ping]
> > [was: Postpone expanding va_arg until pass_stdarg]
> > On 24-02-15 07:48, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > > On 23-02-15 11:09, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > > > On 23-02-15 09:26, Michael Matz wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Btw, I'm wondering if as run-time optimization we can tentatively
> > > > > > set
> > > > > > PROP_gimple_lva at the start of the gimple pass, and unset it in
> > > > > > gimplify_va_arg_expr. That way we would avoid the loop in
> > > > > > expand_ifn_va_arg_1 (over all bbs and gimples) in functions without
> > > > > > va_arg.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That makes sense.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I'll put this follow-up patch through testing.
> > > 
> > > Bootstrapped and reg-tested as before together with the rest of the patch
> > > series.
> > > 
> > > OK for stage1?
> > > 
> > 
> > Ping.
> > 
> 
> Ping again.
> 
> Patch originally posted at:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg01402.html .

Ok.

Thanks,
Richard.

> Thanks,
> - Tom
> 
> 
>