From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40627)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1Yuimd-0002x8-RN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 10:46:20 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1YuimW-00057G-KH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 10:46:15 -0400
Received: from mail-qg0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22e]:34266)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1YuimW-000574-FO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 10:46:08 -0400
Received: by qgez61 with SMTP id z61so4428527qge.1
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 19 May 2015 07:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <555B4CAC.30805@twiddle.net>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 07:46:04 -0700
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1432031208-20020-1-git-send-email-aurelien@aurel32.net>
In-Reply-To: <1432031208-20020-1-git-send-email-aurelien@aurel32.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] tcg: fix dead computation for repeated
	input arguments
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 05/19/2015 03:26 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> @@ -1522,6 +1522,9 @@ static void tcg_liveness_analysis(TCGContext *s)
>                      if (dead_temps[arg]) {
>                          dead_args |= (1 << i);
>                      }
> +                }
> +                for (i = nb_oargs; i < nb_oargs + nb_iargs; i++) {
> +                    arg = args[i];
>                      dead_temps[arg] = 0;
>                  }
>                  s->op_dead_args[oi] = dead_args;

How about another line of commentary for each loop?

Something like

  /* Record arguments that die in this opcode.  */

for the first and

  /* Input arguments are live for preceeding opcodes.  */

for the second.

As for the same loop for calls, you're right that it may well cause us to do a
tiny bit of redundant work, but nothing else bad will happen.  We'll enter
temp_dead more times than necessary.  I'm always skeptical about knowingly
giving a compiler bad information though.  You tend to not know how data is
going to be used in future, and *then* get bad results.


r~