On 11-09-29 20:57 , H.J. Lu wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/lto/lto.c b/gcc/lto/lto.c
index 77eb1a1..9c6770a 100644
--- a/gcc/lto/lto.c
+++ b/gcc/lto/lto.c
@@ -93,6 +93,93 @@ lto_obj_create_section_hash_table (void)
return htab_create (37, hash_name, eq_name, free_with_string);
}
+/* Delete a allocated integer key in the splay tree. */
+
s/a allocated/an allocated/
Please document KEY.
+static void
+lto_splay_tree_delete_id (splay_tree_key key)
+{
+ free ((void *) key);
+}
+
+/* Compare two splay tree node ids. */
+
Likewise A and B. Other functions have similar issues.
+/* Insert a splay tree node with ID as key and FILE_DATA as value. */
+
+static void
+lto_splay_tree_insert (splay_tree t, unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT id,
+ struct lto_file_decl_data * file_data)
s/* file_data/*file_data/
+/* Create a splay tree. */
+
+static splay_tree
+lto_splay_tree_new (void)
+{
+ if (sizeof (splay_tree_key) == sizeof (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT))
+ return splay_tree_new (lto_splay_tree_compare_ids, NULL, NULL);
+ else
+ return splay_tree_new (lto_splay_tree_compare_ids,
+ lto_splay_tree_delete_id,
+ NULL);
+}
Why not always do the option where we allocate the IDs? I don't think
it would be a huge performance hit and it would make the code easier to
understand.
Could you document here and in lto-plugin why we need to play with this
checking of splay_tree_key? And why both need to kept in sync.
Thanks. Diego.
