On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:11:21PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
> > diff --git a/gcc/loop-iv.c b/gcc/loop-iv.c
> > index 57fb8c1..21c3180 100644
> > --- a/gcc/loop-iv.c
> > +++ b/gcc/loop-iv.c
> > @@ -1860,7 +1860,6 @@ simplify_using_initial_values (struct loop *loop,
> > enum rtx_code op, rtx *expr)
> > {
> > bool expression_valid;
> > rtx head, tail, last_valid_expr;
> > - rtx_expr_list *cond_list;
> > rtx_insn *insn;
> > rtx neutral, aggr;
> > regset altered, this_altered;
> > @@ -1936,7 +1935,7 @@ simplify_using_initial_values (struct loop *loop,
> > enum rtx_code op, rtx *expr)
> >
> > expression_valid = true;
> > last_valid_expr = *expr;
> > - cond_list = NULL;
> > + auto_vec<rtx> cond_list;
> > while (1)
> > {
> > insn = BB_END (e->src);
>
> How about using "auto_vec<rtx, N>" for some small N, since we expect
> cond_list to be used fairly often?
sure, why not?
> > @@ -1988,39 +1988,30 @@ simplify_using_initial_values (struct loop *loop,
> > enum rtx_code op, rtx *expr)
> >
> > if (suitable_set_for_replacement (insn, &dest, &src))
> > {
> > - rtx_expr_list **pnote, **pnote_next;
> > -
> > replace_in_expr (expr, dest, src);
> > if (CONSTANT_P (*expr))
> > goto out;
> >
> > - for (pnote = &cond_list; *pnote; pnote = pnote_next)
> > + unsigned int len = cond_list.length ();
> > + for (unsigned int i = len - 1; i < len; i--)
> > {
> > - rtx_expr_list *note = *pnote;
> > - rtx old_cond = XEXP (note, 0);
> > + rtx old_cond = cond_list[i];
> >
> > - pnote_next = (rtx_expr_list **)&XEXP (note, 1);
> > - replace_in_expr (&XEXP (note, 0), dest, src);
> > + replace_in_expr (&cond_list[i], dest, src);
> >
> > /* We can no longer use a condition that has been simplified
> > to a constant, and simplify_using_condition will abort if
> > we try. */
> > - if (CONSTANT_P (XEXP (note, 0)))
> > - {
> > - *pnote = *pnote_next;
> > - pnote_next = pnote;
> > - free_EXPR_LIST_node (note);
> > - }
> > + if (CONSTANT_P (cond_list[i]))
> > + cond_list.ordered_remove (i);
>
> Do we really need ordered removes here and below? Obviously it turns
> the original O(1) operation into O(n), and it wasn't obvious from first
> glance that the order of the conditions was relevant.
I'm not sure, but I certainly don't know that we don't need them. I
kind of ment to not send this patch because of that question but then
forgot. I'm not really sure what to do with these, I don't know that I
know what's going on well enough to prove unordered removes are fine,
but I guess I can try.
Trev
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
