This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] removing statement walking from domwalk.c?
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 19:17:46 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFC] removing statement walking from domwalk.c?
- References: <gvbv15$5p1$1@ger.gmane.org>
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> for my next patch to fwprop for PR33928, I need a dominator walk and I
> would have liked to use domwalk.c; however it is only for trees at the
> moment, while I need it on RTL.
>
> I was thinking therefore of removing the following fields from the
> dominator walk callbacks:
>
> ?BOOL_BITFIELD walk_stmts_backward : 1;
>
> ?void (*before_dom_children_walk_stmts) (struct dom_walk_data *,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?basic_block,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?gimple_stmt_iterator);
>
> ?void (*after_dom_children_walk_stmts) (struct dom_walk_data *,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? basic_block,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? gimple_stmt_iterator);
>
> (the last is unused anyway). ?After merging the before_stmts/after_stmts
> callbacks into one, the callbacks would be initialize_block_local_data,
> before_dom_children and after_dom_children. ?I would of course take care
> of adapting the current uses, which would be quite mechanical (and
> anyway there are just half a dozen).
>
> Any objections? ?I don't know exactly when I'll get to it, but I hope by
> the end of June.
Works for me.
Richard.