This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[tree-ssa] Switch edge insertion patch.
- From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- To: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 17 Oct 2003 15:48:30 -0400
- Subject: [tree-ssa] Switch edge insertion patch.
This ugliness occurs when you have 2 or more nested switch stmt's and
the insertion of a stmt on an edge causes more than one of the switches
to be processed. ie, In order to create a default case for one switch,
we need to create a deafult case for a second switch.
Its pretty ugly, and the patch is equally ugly. It resolves this problem
and the problem PRE was having with pre-splitting all critical edges.
Bootstrapped and verified on x86, no new regresssions, and checked in.
Andrew
* tree-cfg.c (handle_switch_fallthru): A New basic block is the result
of splitting edges of nested switch stmts.
(handle_switch_split): If a new block is created, restart the loop for
inserting GOTO's to handle the new block.
Index: tree-cfg.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/Attic/tree-cfg.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1.4.176
diff -c -p -r1.1.4.176 tree-cfg.c
*** tree-cfg.c 14 Oct 2003 17:31:33 -0000 1.1.4.176
--- tree-cfg.c 17 Oct 2003 19:24:15 -0000
*************** handle_switch_fallthru (tree sw_stmt, ba
*** 3658,3665 ****
for (e = dest->pred; e; e = e->pred_next)
if (e->src != new_bb)
{
stmt = last_stmt (e->src);
! if (TREE_CODE (stmt) != GOTO_EXPR)
{
goto_stmt = build1 (GOTO_EXPR, void_type_node, label);
tmp = PENDING_STMT (e);
--- 3658,3669 ----
for (e = dest->pred; e; e = e->pred_next)
if (e->src != new_bb)
{
+ /* The only way stmt can be NULL is if we are in the process of
+ handling a nested switch stmt when we get here, and haven't
+ fully constructed the default case for the other one yet. This
+ ought to be safe to ignore at this point. */
stmt = last_stmt (e->src);
! if (stmt && TREE_CODE (stmt) != GOTO_EXPR)
{
goto_stmt = build1 (GOTO_EXPR, void_type_node, label);
tmp = PENDING_STMT (e);
*************** handle_switch_split (basic_block src, ba
*** 3762,3781 ****
/* Insert a goto on all edges except the one from src to this label. */
for (e = dest->pred; e ; e = e->pred_next)
{
if (e->src != src)
{
goto_stmt = build1 (GOTO_EXPR, void_type_node, label);
tmp_tree = PENDING_STMT (e);
SET_PENDING_STMT (e, NULL_TREE);
bsi_insert_on_edge_immediate (e, goto_stmt, NULL, &new_bb);
SET_PENDING_STMT (e, tmp_tree);
e->flags = e->flags & ~EDGE_FALLTHRU;
- /* Splitting this edge should never result in a new block. */
- if (new_bb)
- abort ();
}
}
--- 3766,3810 ----
/* Insert a goto on all edges except the one from src to this label. */
+ restart_loop:
for (e = dest->pred; e ; e = e->pred_next)
{
if (e->src != src)
{
+ tmp = bsi_last (e->src);
+ goto_stmt = bsi_stmt (tmp);
+ /* Dont issue a goto if it already goto's this label. See below
+ for how this can happen to a new label. */
+ if (goto_stmt && TREE_CODE (goto_stmt) == GOTO_EXPR
+ && GOTO_DESTINATION (goto_stmt) == label)
+ continue;
+
goto_stmt = build1 (GOTO_EXPR, void_type_node, label);
tmp_tree = PENDING_STMT (e);
SET_PENDING_STMT (e, NULL_TREE);
bsi_insert_on_edge_immediate (e, goto_stmt, NULL, &new_bb);
+
+ /* So splitting this edge *can* result in another basic block
+ if there is a case label nested inside a an if construct, for
+ instance. Yes, this is allowed. blah.
+ So this is ugly. The edge may no longer be in the edge list we
+ have been traversing, so we have to start over. First attach any
+ pending insertions to the new edge. This is why we need to check
+ for exisiting GOTO's to our label above. */
+ if (new_bb)
+ {
+ #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
+ /* There ought to be exactly one successor to the new block. */
+ if (new_bb->succ == NULL || new_bb->succ->succ_next != NULL)
+ abort();
+ #endif
+ SET_PENDING_STMT (new_bb->succ, tmp_tree);
+ new_bb->succ->flags = new_bb->succ->flags & ~EDGE_FALLTHRU;
+ goto restart_loop;
+ }
SET_PENDING_STMT (e, tmp_tree);
e->flags = e->flags & ~EDGE_FALLTHRU;
}
}