This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
IPA-SRA misc trivia observations
- From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com>
- To: Martin Jambor <mjambor at suse dot cz>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:02:43 +0200
- Subject: IPA-SRA misc trivia observations
0) Please run CSiBE so we can see if or how much IPA-SRA regresses for -Os
[PATCH, pretty-ipa merge 1/4] Function parameter manipulation infrastructer through param notes
s|/* Structure do describe|/* Structure to describe|
s|functions modyfying|functions modifying|
If ipa_parm_note.base_index is zero-based, why not make it unsigned int?
Same for the retval of count_formal_params_1() etc.
docs for count_formal_params_1():
/* Return number of formal parameters of FNDECL. */
sounds a little bit like type_num_arguments() but is of course a different thing.
It seems to be used quite often in the tree, perhaps
just add a FOR_EACH_DECL_ARGUMENT macro and use that everywhere?
dump_aggregate_1(): 2 surplus empty lines
Perhaps make dump_aggregate_1 and dump_aggregate's "indent" param unsigned?
type_num_arguments(). Just int count = type_num_arguments (fntype) ?
ipa_modify_formal_parameters(): Sounds odd to have a final return in that void fn.
ipa_modify_call_arguments(): Why don't you just VEC_iterate over the notes?
I didn look close, but the last part of the function looks similar to
/* Return true iff BASE_INDEX is in NOTES twice or more times. */
/* Return true iff BASE_INDEX is in NOTES more than once. */
ipa_combine_notes(): VEC_iterate ? A bitmap would make that one look prettier i suppose ;)
s|assuming they are menat to be|assuming they are ment to be|
ipa_dump_param_notes(): Yet another odd final return in a void function.