search for: allochungoffus

...gen? In User.h: +public: + template <unsigned Idx> Use &Op() { + return OperandTraits<User>::op_begin(this)[Idx]; + } + template <unsigned Idx> const Use &Op() const { + return OperandTraits<User>::op_begin(const_cast<User*>(this))[Idx]; + } + Use *allocHungoffUses(unsigned) const; + void dropHungoffUses(Use *U) { + if (OperandList == U) { + OperandList = 0; + NumOperands = 0; + } + Use::zap(U, U->getImpliedUser(), true); + } At a very brief scan, it looks like allocHungoffUses and dropHungoffUses can be made protected, not public....

Hi all, I have reported more than enough about the space savings achieved and the associated costs, here comes the current patch for review. Since this one is substantially smaller than the previous one, I did not cut it in pieces. The front part is about headers and the rest the .cpp and other files. Cheers, Gabor -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified

...er get placed at less than an 8-byte boundary. However, in that case, the whole point of the "use diet" optimization is lost! I'll investigate and try to find out. I'm also still not sure why the assertion in PointerIntPair::setPointer() did not get triggered by the User::allocHungOffUses() implementation in Use.cpp. Perhaps the assertion is wrong (it looks reasonable, though) or perhaps there is something else going on I haven't seen yet. I'll look into this some more as well. Let me know if the workaround works for you, and I'd appreciate feedback from anyon...

Hi all, I've located a regression that causes my project to crash. It's in revision 67979, where PointerIntPair is changed from storing the integer in the upper bits instead of the lower bits. My project is an experimental JIT-compiler in Windows. So I was wondering if anyone had any clue why the new PointerIntPair implementation might fail. It doesn't seem very safe to me to

...8-byte boundary. > However, in that case, the whole point of the "use diet" > optimization is lost! I'll investigate and try to find out. > > I'm also still not sure why the assertion in > PointerIntPair::setPointer() did not get triggered by the > User::allocHungOffUses() implementation in Use.cpp. Perhaps the > assertion is wrong (it looks reasonable, though) or perhaps there is > something else going on I haven't seen yet. I'll look into this some > more as well. > > Let me know if the workaround works for you, and I'd apprecia...