This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Simplify/improve fold_Nary_to_constant
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:40:26 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Simplify/improve fold_Nary_to_constant
- Organization: SUSE Labs
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0504151959420.21317-100000@www.eyesopen.com>
On Saturday 16 April 2005 06:34, Roger Sayle wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > > 2005-04-03 Roger Sayle <roger@eyesopen.com>
> > >
> > > * fold-const.c (fold_relational_hi_lo): Delete function and prototype.
> > > (fold_binary): Update comment mentioning fold_relational_hi_lo.
> > > (fold_binary_to_constant): Simplify using fold_binary.
> > > (fold_unary_to_constant): Likewise, simplify using fold_unary.
> >
> > If we're not taking a noticable compile-time hit, then I'm all for it.
>
> Now that mainline is bootstraping again, I've confirmed that this
> patch has no impact on compile-time (bootstrap user time improves
> by 0.4 seconds, obviously in the noise) and have committed it to
> mainline CVS. Thanks.
Could you please also update the comments before the functions you
have simplified? They now both still say:
Note this is primarily designed to be called after gimplification
of the tree structures and when op0 is a constant. As a result
of those simplifying assumptions this routine is far simpler than
the generic fold routine. */
But the functions don't use "those simplifying assumptions" anymore,
so the comments are outdated.
Thanks,
Gr.
Steven