This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 3/6] Share code from fold_array_ctor_reference with fold.
- From: Alan Lawrence <alan dot lawrence at arm dot com>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:35:12 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] Share code from fold_array_ctor_reference with fold.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <563827FF dot 1040309 at redhat dot com>
> s/explicitely/explicitly/ And remove the '*' from the 2nd and 3rd lines
> of the comment.
>
> It looks like get_ctor_element_at_index has numerous formatting
> problems. In particular you didn't indent the braces across the board
> properly. Also check for tabs vs spaces issues please.
Yes, you are quite right, I'm not quite sure how those crept in. (Well, the
'explicitely' I am sure was a copy-paste error but the others!). Apologies...
I already committed the offending code as r229605, but here's a patch to clean
it up - does it look ok now?
Thanks, Alan
---
gcc/fold-const.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.c b/gcc/fold-const.c
index ee9b349..e977b49 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-const.c
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
@@ -11855,16 +11855,16 @@ get_array_ctor_element_at_index (tree ctor, offset_int access_index)
offset_int low_bound = 0;
if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (ctor)) == ARRAY_TYPE)
- {
- tree domain_type = TYPE_DOMAIN (TREE_TYPE (ctor));
- if (domain_type && TYPE_MIN_VALUE (domain_type))
{
- /* Static constructors for variably sized objects makes no sense. */
- gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (domain_type)) == INTEGER_CST);
- index_type = TREE_TYPE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (domain_type));
- low_bound = wi::to_offset (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (domain_type));
+ tree domain_type = TYPE_DOMAIN (TREE_TYPE (ctor));
+ if (domain_type && TYPE_MIN_VALUE (domain_type))
+ {
+ /* Static constructors for variably sized objects makes no sense. */
+ gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (domain_type)) == INTEGER_CST);
+ index_type = TREE_TYPE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (domain_type));
+ low_bound = wi::to_offset (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (domain_type));
+ }
}
- }
if (index_type)
access_index = wi::ext (access_index, TYPE_PRECISION (index_type),
@@ -11880,29 +11880,29 @@ get_array_ctor_element_at_index (tree ctor, offset_int access_index)
tree cfield, cval;
FOR_EACH_CONSTRUCTOR_ELT (CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS (ctor), cnt, cfield, cval)
- {
- /* Array constructor might explicitely set index, or specify range
- * or leave index NULL meaning that it is next index after previous
- * one. */
- if (cfield)
{
- if (TREE_CODE (cfield) == INTEGER_CST)
- max_index = index = wi::to_offset (cfield);
+ /* Array constructor might explicitly set index, or specify a range,
+ or leave index NULL meaning that it is next index after previous
+ one. */
+ if (cfield)
+ {
+ if (TREE_CODE (cfield) == INTEGER_CST)
+ max_index = index = wi::to_offset (cfield);
+ else
+ {
+ gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (cfield) == RANGE_EXPR);
+ index = wi::to_offset (TREE_OPERAND (cfield, 0));
+ max_index = wi::to_offset (TREE_OPERAND (cfield, 1));
+ }
+ }
else
- {
- gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (cfield) == RANGE_EXPR);
- index = wi::to_offset (TREE_OPERAND (cfield, 0));
- max_index = wi::to_offset (TREE_OPERAND (cfield, 1));
- }
- }
- else
- {
- index += 1;
- if (index_type)
- index = wi::ext (index, TYPE_PRECISION (index_type),
- TYPE_SIGN (index_type));
- max_index = index;
- }
+ {
+ index += 1;
+ if (index_type)
+ index = wi::ext (index, TYPE_PRECISION (index_type),
+ TYPE_SIGN (index_type));
+ max_index = index;
+ }
/* Do we have match? */
if (wi::cmpu (access_index, index) >= 0
--
1.9.1