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] |
On 2013-08-28 12:59 , Caroline Tice wrote:
static void -output_set_info (tree record_type, tree *vtbl_ptr_array, int array_size) +output_set_info (tree record_type, vec<tree> *vtbl_ptr_array)
Since this function does not modify vtbl_ptr_array, you could pass it by value.
@@ -1023,23 +1010,23 @@ register_all_pairs (tree body) if (flag_vtv_debug) output_set_info (current->class_info->class_type, - vtbl_ptr_array, num_vtable_args); + vtbl_ptr_array); - if (num_vtable_args > 1) + if (vtbl_ptr_array->length() > 1) {- insert_call_to_register_set (current->class_name, num_vtable_args,+ insert_call_to_register_set (current->class_name, vtbl_ptr_array, body, arg1, arg2, size_hint_arg); registered_at_least_one = true; } - else if (num_vtable_args >= 0) + else
You've changed the meaning of this else now. Intended? I can't tell from context.
The patch looks fine, otherwise. Diego.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |