https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109006
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
As for the non-*.py comments, perhaps:
2023-03-03 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR middle-end/109006
* vec.cc (test_auto_alias): Adjust comment for removal of
m_vecdata.
* read-rtl-function.cc (function_reader::parse_block): Likewise.
--- gcc/vec.cc.jj 2023-02-27 09:41:30.910265623 +0100
+++ gcc/vec.cc 2023-03-03 13:00:01.941663049 +0100
@@ -568,7 +568,7 @@ test_auto_delete_vec ()
ASSERT_EQ (dtor_count, 2);
}
-/* Verify accesses to m_vecdata are done indirectly. */
+/* Verify accesses to vector elements are done indirectly. */
static void
test_auto_alias ()
--- gcc/read-rtl-function.cc.jj 2023-01-02 09:32:54.001828467 +0100
+++ gcc/read-rtl-function.cc 2023-03-03 12:59:15.941340372 +0100
@@ -622,10 +622,11 @@ function_reader::parse_block ()
These can get out-of-sync when basic blocks are optimized away.
They get back in sync by "compact_blocks".
- We reconstruct cfun->cfg->x_basic_block_info->m_vecdata with NULL
- values in it for any missing basic blocks, so that (a) == (b) for
- all of the blocks we create. The doubly-linked list of basic
- blocks (next_bb/prev_bb) skips over these "holes". */
+ We reconstruct cfun->cfg->x_basic_block_info->address () pointed
+ vector elements with NULL values in it for any missing basic blocks,
+ so that (a) == (b) for all of the blocks we create. The
+ doubly-linked list of basic blocks (next_bb/prev_bb) skips over
+ these "holes". */
if (m_highest_bb_idx < bb_idx)
m_highest_bb_idx = bb_idx;
