This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Remove prototypes for long removed vn related functions
- From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:25:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove prototypes for long removed vn related functions
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090605192729.GA24547@mx.loc> <email@example.com>
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:44:29PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Bernhard
>> :ADDPATCH gcc:
>> ? ? ? ?* tree-flow.h (make_value_handle, set_value_handle, sort_vuses,
>> ? ? ? ?sort_vuses_heap, vn_lookup_or_add, vn_lookup_or_add_with_stmt,
>> ? ? ? ?vn_lookup_or_add_with_vuses, vn_add, vn_add_with_vuses,
>> ? ? ? ?vn_lookup_with_stmt, vn_lookup, vn_lookup_with_vuses): Remove
>> ? ? ? ?prototypes for removed functions.
>> ? ? ? ?(expressions_equal_p): Move to ...
>> ? ? ? ?* tree-ssa-sccvn.h: ... here and ...
>> ? ? ? ?* matrix-reorg.c: ... adjust includes.
>Huh. expressions_equal_p should likely be private to tree-ssa-sccvn.c. The
indeed. Freaky, isn't it. One would assume that there is existing infrastructure
for checking two tree's equality from some generic spot. But i can only find
rtx_equal_p and cp_tree_equal (without '_p'). Should, perhaps, both of sccvn
and matrix-reorg use some existing other tree-equality check?
I'm aware that gcc keeps growing and growing which provokes certain kind of
folks to curse periodically ;) Reusing common infrastructure, with all it's
pros and cons, may not be all that relevant, but IMHO has it's benefits.
>call in matrix-reorg.c is confusing...
>Well. The patch is ok.
Thanks, will install for now.