Re: Dataflow branch review #2

["Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On 5/31/07, Richard Sandiford <richard@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> writes:
> > +/* For iterating over insns in basic block when we might remove the
> > +   current insn.  */
> > +#define FOR_BB_INSNS_SAFE(BB, INSN, CURR)                    \
> > +  for ((INSN) = BB_HEAD (BB), (CURR)=(INSN) ? NEXT_INSN ((INSN)): NULL;      \
> > +       (INSN) && (INSN) != NEXT_INSN (BB_END (BB));  \
> > +       (INSN) = (CURR), (CURR) = (INSN) ? NEXT_INSN ((INSN)) : NULL)
>
> Would:
>
>   for ((INSN) = BB_HEAD (BB); \
>        (INSN) \
>        && (INSN) != NEXT_INSN (BB_END (BB)) \
>        && ((CURR) = NEXT_INSN (INSN), true); \
>        (INSN) = (CURR))
>
> be any better?  It's the construct I'm more used to seeing when the
> loop is written by hand, albeit with the CURR assignment at the
> beginning of the loop body.  Similarly for the reverse version.

Interesting, when i wrote this macro, i actually copied it from GCSE
(or somewhere).
If you think the
> CURR seems a little misnamed really.  It sounds like it ought to be
> the current instruction, but it's not.  (Indeed, without a comment
> saying what CURR is, you might even think CURR is the thing you're
> supposed to use.)

Ya, we should rename it to TMP or something :)