On 5/5/11, dnovi...@google.com <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > http://codereview.appspot.com/4486042/diff/1/gcc/cp/pph-streamer.h > File gcc/cp/pph-streamer.h (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4486042/diff/1/gcc/cp/pph-streamer.h#newcode152 > gcc/cp/pph-streamer.h:152: for (i = 0; i < c; ++i) > +#if 0 > +static inline void > +pph_output_tree_array (pph_stream *stream, tree *a, size_t c, bool > ref_p) > +{ > + size_t i; > > Why are you adding this #if0 code? No apparent reason given that we > have pph_stream_write_tree_vec. > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4486042/diff/1/gcc/cp/pph-streamer.h#newcode338 > gcc/cp/pph-streamer.h:338: size_t i; > +static inline void > +pph_input_tree_array (pph_stream *stream, tree *a, size_t c) > +{ > + size_t i; > > Likewise.
The object I thought I needed was an array, not a vec. I decided that writing that array was not helpful, and disabled the code. I archived the tool here in case I need later. > http://codereview.appspot.com/4486042/diff/1/gcc/cp/pph-streamer.h#newcode245 > gcc/cp/pph-streamer.h:245: tree t; > #if 0 > +static inline void > +pph_output_tree_VEC (pph_stream *stream, VEC(tree,gc) *v, bool ref_p) > +{ > + tree t; > > Another one of the same? > > http://codereview.appspot.com/4486042/diff/1/gcc/cp/pph-streamer.h#newcode355 > gcc/cp/pph-streamer.h:355: size_t i; > +#if 0 > +static inline void > +pph_input_tree_VEC (pph_stream *stream, VEC(tree,gc) *v) > +{ > + size_t i; > > Likewise. The routines will eventually do different tasks. The writes may be redundant but the reads are not. In particular, the use of pph_stream_read_tree_vec overwrites the tree_vec variable. We really want to do a merge. I can get away with the overwrite only with the single-leading pph file. When we do more than one PPH file, I will need something like these routines back, so these have been archived for future code. > http://codereview.appspot.com/4486042/ -- Lawrence Crowl
