https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65533
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65533 > > --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > > Hmm, looks basically ok, though doing > > > > vect_free_slp_tree (child); > > > > from the cleanup before > > > > /* If the SLP build for operand zero failed and operand zero > > and one can be commutated try that for the scalar stmts > > that failed the match. */ > > if (i == 0 > > ... > > > > and simply re-allocating child with > > > > child = vect_create_new_slp_node (oprnd_info->def_stmts); > > if (!child) > > { > > vect_free_oprnd_info (oprnds_info); > > return false; > > } > > > > might be "simpler". > > Well, it would be more costly (having to deallocate and allocate everything > again), and not really much shorter in the source. Only if we in the future > popluate early not just the SLP_TREE_CHILDREN vector, but various further > things your version might be better from maintanance POV. > > > Your patch is ok if it is already tested. > > Not yet tested, but bootstraps/regtests already in progress. If you feel > strongly about this, I can surely kill those, write a new patch and redo that. No, I don't feel strongly about it - for clarity the function should get some refactoring but not at this stage.
