This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [vta->trunk] VTA merge
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, jakub at redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:54:08 +0200
- Subject: Re: [vta->trunk] VTA merge
- References: <orskfb6zb2.fsf@huru.localdomain> <84fc9c000908300345s473a12f5u1b25ba054ca5f9a1@mail.gmail.com> <or7hwk9xxy.fsf@huru.localdomain> <84fc9c000908310230n3cbfc13bn1f83fcc6e0e688e9@mail.gmail.com> <ork50j8vks.fsf@huru.localdomain> <4A9C5373.6060201@redhat.com> <ortyznnumw.fsf@huru.localdomain>
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Alexandre Oliva<aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2009, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>> + ? ? ?if (!id->debug_stmts)
>>> + ? ? ? ?id->debug_stmts = VEC_alloc (gimple, heap, 1);
>>> + ? ? ?VEC_safe_push (gimple, heap, id->debug_stmts, copy);
>
>> Note that VEC_safe_push will also handle the initial
>> allocation of the VEC from NULL. ?It's quite handy.
>
> Aah, indeed, this makes room for a few simplifications. ?Even more so
> because id is zero initialized.
>
> Here's the revised patch I'm testing now, with a few additional
> adjustments. ?It has already completed bootstrap on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Looks good to me. Well, let's just go forward with it - we obviously disagree
about the added abstraction at this point. I'm looking forward to you
adding other kinds of debug instructions in the near future. Or at least
a hint on what they could be.
Thanks,
Richard.
>
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter ? ?http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
> You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
> Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ ? FSF Latin America board member
> Free Software Evangelist ? ? ?Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer
>
>