On 13/07/2015 13:55, Martin Jambor wrote: > I can't approve it, but FWIW, I'm generally fine with the patch. > Although the original idea was to share one func_body_info in between > ipa-cp and ipa-inline analyses, this is certainly better than what we > have now and perhaps even good enough generally.
Ah, so you'd add a pointer to cgraph_node? I only have a question then---does cgraph_node have a "destructor" where I can free the func_body_info? Or is there no such thing? > The only semi-issue I have is the name of func_body_info. If it is > going to be exposed in a header file, perhaps it should get an ipa_ > prefix. That's a patch as large as this one. I can do the rename later, and maybe have it preapproved to convince me to get the new public key in place. :) > I also think that its initialization should be put into a > common function, but that is somethig I can do as a followup, if need > be. Tried doing that now... it seems better to do it together with adding a func_body_info* to cgraph_node*, so that the initialization is done lazily in cgraph_node::get_func_body_info. Paolo