On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 06/26/2015 03:02 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> GCC avoids multi-pointers/dangling-pointers of struct iv by allocating >>>> multiple copies of the structure. This patch is an obvious fix to the >>>> issue >>>> by managing iv structures in obstack. >>>> >>>> Bootstrap on x86_64, will apply to trunk if no objection. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> bin >>>> >>>> 2015-06-26 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> >>>> >>>> * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (struct ivopts_data): New field >>>> iv_obstack. >>>> (tree_ssa_iv_optimize_init): Initialize iv_obstack. >>>> (alloc_iv): New parameter. Allocate struct iv using >>>> obstack_alloc. >>>> (set_iv, find_interesting_uses_address, add_candidate_1): New >>>> argument. >>>> (find_interesting_uses_op): Don't duplicate struct iv. >>>> (free_loop_data): Don't free iv structure explicitly. >>>> (tree_ssa_iv_optimize_finalize): Free iv_obstack. >>> >>> Presumably you're trying to simplify the memory management here so that you >>> don't have to track lifetimes of the IV structures so carefully, which in >>> turn simplifies some upcoming patch? >> Yes, that's exactly the reason. I am still on the way fixing >> missed-optimizations in IVO, and plan to do some >> refactoring/simplification afterwards. >>> >>> Note we don't have a "no objection" policy for this kind of patch. However, >>> I think it may make sense to look into having you as a maintainer for the IV >>> optimizations if you're interested. >> Oh, that would be my great honor. > > I'd support that. Bin has done high quality work on IVOPTs in the past and he > knows when to ask questions (not that there ever were simple answers > to those...).
The patch is ok btw. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > Richard. > >> Thanks, >> bin >>> >>> Jeff >>>
