Sorry for the delayed response. Masaki Arai <masaki.a...@linaro.org> writes: > Hi, > > Thank you very much for your quick check and reply. > > Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> writes: >> > I looked into the structure, adding this field is not going to make the > s= >> tructure bigger for either ILP32 or LP64 targets. If you want, you use > bit= >> -fields; there is one bool already there which means you can fit 8 bits > in = >> the same area as currently taken up by that one. > >> Yes. I should have checked the mem_attrs structure. This does have at >> least a byte left unlike some other tightly packed structures (gimple >> and some tree structures in gcc). > > Even though memory usage does not increase, I understand the policy of > wanting to make the data structure simple.
FWIW, I think adding a field for this should be fine. It's very much in the spirit of ORIGINAL_REGNO, which also exists to record the effects of register allocation and reloading. Perhaps one question is how the flag should interact with mem_attrs_eq_p, but I suppose in practice, if everything else about two mem_attrs is the same, the spill flag should be too, and so there should be no need to check the spill flag explicitly. An alternative to adding a new flag might be to check: MEM_EXPR (mem) == get_spill_slot_decl (false) But this would bake in the assumption that everything we want to mark as a spill slot will use set_mem_attrs_for_spill, whereas the flag would allow other MEMs to be marked as spill slots too. Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
