> Index: gcc/tree.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/tree.c 2019-01-04 11:39:24.810266962 +0000
> +++ gcc/tree.c 2019-01-04 11:40:33.141683783 +0000
> @@ -11229,6 +11229,60 @@ initializer_zerop (const_tree init, bool
> }
> }
>
> +/* Return true if EXPR is an initializer expression that consists only
> + of INTEGER_CSTs for which IP0 or IP1 holds and REAL_CSTs for which
> + RP0 or RP1 holds. The choice between IP0 and IP1, and between
> + RP0 and RP1, can vary from one element to the next. */
> +
> +template<bool (*IP0) (const_tree), bool (*IP1) (const_tree),
> + bool (*RP0) (const_tree), bool (*RP1) (const_tree)>
> +bool
> +initializer_each_a_or_bp (const_tree expr)
> +{
> +#define RECURSE(X) initializer_each_a_or_bp<IP0, IP1, RP0, RP1> (X)
> +
> + STRIP_ANY_LOCATION_WRAPPER (expr);
> +
> + switch (TREE_CODE (expr))
> + {
> + case INTEGER_CST:
> + return IP0 (expr) || IP1 (expr);
> +
> + case REAL_CST:
> + return RP0 (expr) || RP1 (expr);
> +
> + case VECTOR_CST:
> + {
> + unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT nelts = vector_cst_encoded_nelts (expr);
> + if (VECTOR_CST_STEPPED_P (expr)
> + && !TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS (TREE_TYPE (expr)).is_constant (&nelts))
> + return false;
> +
> + for (unsigned int i = 0; i < nelts; ++i)
> + if (!RECURSE (VECTOR_CST_ENCODED_ELT (expr, i)))
> + return false;
> +
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + default:
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> +#undef RECURSE
Can we avoid the gratuitous use of template here? We were told that C++ would
be used only when it makes things more straightforward and it's the contrary
in this case, to wit the need for the ugly RECURSE macro in the middle.
--
Eric Botcazou
