Bernd Schmidt <ber...@codesourcery.com> writes:
> * regrename.c (struct du_head): Remove member terminated.
> (create_new_chain): Don't initialize it.
> (scan_rtx_reg): Don't set or test it, test the open_chains_set
> bitmap instead.
> (tick, this_tick): New global variables, moved out of
> regrename_optimize.
> (current_id, open_chains, closed_chains, open_chains_set,
> live_in_chains, live_hard_regs): Reorder declarations.
> (dump_def_use_chain): Move function earlier in the file.
> (rename_chains): New static function, broken out of
> regrename_optimize.
> (regrename_optimize): Use it. Remove #if 0'ed code.
The reindent operation seems to have introduced some weird formatting
(due in some cases to the existing code not really following the rules).
So:
> +/* Process the closed chains starting with ALL_CHAINS and rename
> + registers if possible. */
> +static void
> +rename_chains (du_head_p all_chains)
> +{
> + HARD_REG_SET unavailable;
> +
> +
excess whitespace here.
> + /* Iterate over elements in the chain in order to:
> + 1. Count number of uses, and narrow the set of registers we can
> + use for renaming.
> + 2. Compute the superunion of register classes in this chain. */
original formatting was better:
/* Iterate over elements in the chain in order to:
1. Count number of uses, and narrow the set of registers we can
use for renaming.
2. Compute the superunion of register classes in this chain. */
> + if (has_preferred_class
> + && (pass == 0)
> + != TEST_HARD_REG_BIT
> + (reg_class_contents[preferred_class], new_reg))
> + continue;
The last two lines of the condition aren't indented properly.
(I checked it wasn't just a diff artefact.)
> + && ((pass == 0
> + && !TEST_HARD_REG_BIT
> + (reg_class_contents[preferred_class],
> + best_new_reg))
> + || tick[best_new_reg] > tick[new_reg]))
Same thing with the TEST_HARD_REG_BIT argument here.
OK otherwise, thanks. I suppose removing the terminated field is a
(very) slight compile-time pessimisation in itself. We only set it
when we were modifying the chain anyway, so there should be no cache
pollution problems. And calling bitmap_bit_p is more expensive than
a bitfield test on a structure that we're already looking at.
The difference is nothing like enough to be a problem though, especially
if it makes the other patch easier. Just saying in case anyone thought
it wasn't being considered...
Richard
