This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Improve combining of conditionals

From: Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim at codesourcery dot com>
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:43:56 +0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve combining of conditionals
References: <33F4E740-6ED2-4694-B63C-E43ED3B91461@codesourcery.com> <201104151104.44739.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <BANLkTimUvcShsaKBC9zJnfHUr2-eLUTgzw@mail.gmail.com>

On Apr 15, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>> @@ -4938,11 +4938,13 @@ find_split_point (rtx *loc, rtx insn, bool set_src)
>> 
>>    IN_DEST is nonzero if we are processing the SET_DEST of a SET.
>> 
>> +   IN_COND is nonzero if we are on top level of the condition.
>> 
>> "...we are at the top level of a condition."
> 
> And make IN_COND a bool instead of an int?

I think it's better to follow existing format of the function and make IN_COND to be of the same type as IN_DEST, i.e.,  an 'int'.  I agree that 'bool' should be preferred when adding a new function or significantly rewriting an existing one.

--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
Mentor Graphics / CodeSourcery

References:
- [PATCH] Improve combining of conditionals
  - From: Maxim Kuvyrkov
- Re: [PATCH] Improve combining of conditionals
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: [PATCH] Improve combining of conditionals
  - From: Steven Bosscher

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]