This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 02/89] Introduce gimple_switch and use it in various places
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, Trevor Saunders <tsaunders at mozilla dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:38:09 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/89] Introduce gimple_switch and use it in various places
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1398099480-49147-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <1398099480-49147-3-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <20140421224535 dot GA19895 at tsaunders-iceball dot corp dot tor1 dot mozilla dot com> <1398186820 dot 26834 dot 100 dot camel at surprise>
On 04/22/2014 10:13 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 18:45 -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>>> --- a/gcc/tree-loop-distribution.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/tree-loop-distribution.c
>>> @@ -687,8 +687,9 @@ generate_loops_for_partition (struct loop *loop, partition_t partition,
>>> }
>>> else if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_SWITCH)
>>> {
>>> + gimple_switch switch_stmt = stmt->as_a_gimple_switch ();
>>
>> maybe it would make more sense to do
>> else if (gimple_switch switch_stmt = stmt->dyn_cast_gimple_switch ())
>
> Thanks. Yes, or indeed something like:
>
> else if (gimple_switch switch_stmt = dyn_cast <gimple_switch> (stmt))
>
> (modulo the "pointerness" issues mentioned in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01334.html )
>
I'm not keen on embedding assignments into conditionals like this, much less
embedding variable declarations as well. I think David's original is perfect.
r~