This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH fortran] Use fold_build everywhere
FX Coudert wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch which also modifies the
copyright years of the touched files and which fixes a typo I made
when I tried to fix formatting in the diff.
My understanding was that the copyright years in the files need to
include year X iff a release of the codebase is done in year X,
independently of whether the file was actually modified or not. From
To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you have
made nontrivial changes to the package. (Here we assume you're using a
publicly accessible revision control server, so that every revision
installed is also immediately and automatically published.) When you
add the new year, it is not required to keep track which files have
seen significant changes in the new year and which have not. It is
recommended and simpler to add the new year to all files in the
package, and be done with it for the rest of the year.
Well, that doesn't make wrong what I did :-) Certainly it's better than
not updating the numbers at all. I will take care of the rest later today.
Other than that, the patch is OK. To satisfy my curiosity: I sometimes
used buildN() instead of fold_buildN() when I know that the expression
can't be simplified, to avoid extra burden on the middle-end, was that
wrong or is it just that the benefit is too small to notice?
Last I checked the optimizers eat practically all the time in a
compilation, so it's not important time-wise. Note that (at least
according to my understanding) fold_* would more appropriately be called
canonicalize_*, i.e. not only does it fold trees with constant
arguments, it also puts trees into standard forms by replacing
expressions with equivalent ones (say, something like (!a && !b) -> !(a
|| b)). Therefore, folding may have benefits even for non-constant