[PATCH fortran] Use fold_build everywhere
Tobias Schlüter
tobias.schlueter@physik.uni-muenchen.de
Sun Feb 24 17:00:00 GMT 2008
FX Coudert wrote:
>> Attached is an updated version of the patch which also modifies the
>> copyright years of the touched files and which fixes a typo I made
>> when I tried to fix formatting in the diff.
>
> My understanding was that the copyright years in the files need to
> include year X iff a release of the codebase is done in year X,
> independently of whether the file was actually modified or not. From
> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html:
>> To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you have
>> made nontrivial changes to the package. (Here we assume you're using a
>> publicly accessible revision control server, so that every revision
>> installed is also immediately and automatically published.) When you
>> add the new year, it is not required to keep track which files have
>> seen significant changes in the new year and which have not. It is
>> recommended and simpler to add the new year to all files in the
>> package, and be done with it for the rest of the year.
Well, that doesn't make wrong what I did :-) Certainly it's better than
not updating the numbers at all. I will take care of the rest later today.
>
> Other than that, the patch is OK. To satisfy my curiosity: I sometimes
> used buildN() instead of fold_buildN() when I know that the expression
> can't be simplified, to avoid extra burden on the middle-end, was that
> wrong or is it just that the benefit is too small to notice?
Last I checked the optimizers eat practically all the time in a
compilation, so it's not important time-wise. Note that (at least
according to my understanding) fold_* would more appropriately be called
canonicalize_*, i.e. not only does it fold trees with constant
arguments, it also puts trees into standard forms by replacing
expressions with equivalent ones (say, something like (!a && !b) -> !(a
|| b)). Therefore, folding may have benefits even for non-constant
arguments.
Thanks,
- Tobi
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list