Hi,
On Mon, 2 May 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> --- 348,367 ----
> >> bool insert_at_next_slot_p)
> >> {
> >> void **slot;
> >> unsigned ix;
> >> bool existed_p;
> >>
> >> gcc_assert (t);
> >>
> >> ! slot = pointer_map_insert (cache->node_map, t);
> >> ! if (!*slot)
> >
> > ix might legitimately be zero. Hence this transformation is not
> > equivalent. You might want to enter ix+1 into the cache with the
> > appropriate adjustment at read-out. Same for the other places.
>
> Or not use index zero.
I never like these sentinals.
> Maybe better than also have to deal with ix + 1 wrapping ...
We don't handle ix wrapping, why should we now suddenly care about ix+1
wrapping?
Ciao,
Michael.
