On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/25/2015 03:42 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:06:14PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote: >>> >>> This changes the completely_scalarize_record path to also work on arrays >>> (thus >>> allowing records containing arrays, etc.). This just required extending >>> the >>> existing type_consists_of_records_p and completely_scalarize_record >>> methods >>> to handle things of ARRAY_TYPE as well as RECORD_TYPE. Hence, I renamed >>> both >>> methods so as not to mention 'record'. >> >> >> thanks for working on this. I see Jeff has already approved the >> patch, but I have two comments nevertheless. First, I would be much >> happier if you added a proper comment to scalarize_elem function which >> you forgot completely. The name is not very descriptive and it has >> quite few parameters too. > > Right. I mentioned that I missed the lack of function comments when looking > at #3 and asked Alan to go back and fix them in #1 and #2. > >> >> Second, this patch should also fix PR 67283. It would be great if you >> could verify that and add it to the changelog when committing if that >> is indeed the case. > > Excellent. Yes, definitely mention the BZ.
One extra question is does the way we limit total scalarization work well for arrays? I suppose we have either sth like the maximum size of an aggregate we scalarize or the maximum number of component accesses we create? Thanks, Richard. > jeff >
