Re: [PATCH 04/10] tree-object-size: Single pass dependency loop resolution

2021-11-23 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 07:14:04PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > This feels way too risky to me. I think making some code do something > > different between (x & OST_DYNAMIC) == 0 and == 1 is just fine, > > it doesn't have to share everything. After all, for __bdos we actually > > emit

Re: [PATCH 04/10] tree-object-size: Single pass dependency loop resolution

2021-11-23 Thread Siddhesh Poyarekar
On 11/23/21 17:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:31:30AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: Use SSA names as placeholders self-referencing variables to generate expressions for object sizes and then reduce those size expressions to constants instead of repeatedly walking through

Re: [PATCH 04/10] tree-object-size: Single pass dependency loop resolution

2021-11-23 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:31:30AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > Use SSA names as placeholders self-referencing variables to generate > expressions for object sizes and then reduce those size expressions > to constants instead of repeatedly walking through statements. > > This change also

[PATCH 04/10] tree-object-size: Single pass dependency loop resolution

2021-11-09 Thread Siddhesh Poyarekar
Use SSA names as placeholders self-referencing variables to generate expressions for object sizes and then reduce those size expressions to constants instead of repeatedly walking through statements. This change also makes sure that object sizes for an SSA name are updated at most twice, once if