On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 2:39 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 09:06:33AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Alternatively, I believe we could remove from the patch the in-place > > replacement of CASE_LABEL_EXPRs with LABEL_EXPRs if we want to remove, > > just splay_tree_remove those, because by my reading of > > preprocess_case_label_vec_for_gimple we also ignore the fully out of range > > CASE_LABEL_EXPRs there, shall I tweak the patch and rebootstrap? > > Here is a version of the patch that doesn't overwrite those CASE_LABEL_EXPRs > as gimplifier handles those, just removes them from the splay tree. > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? > > 2019-04-09 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> > > PR c/89888 > * c-common.h (c_add_case_label): Remove orig_type and outside_range_p > arguments. > (c_do_switch_warnings): Remove outside_range_p argument. > * c-common.c (check_case_bounds): Removed. > (c_add_case_label): Remove orig_type and outside_range_p arguments. > Don't call check_case_bounds. Fold low_value as well as high_value. > * c-warn.c (c_do_switch_warnings): Remove outside_range_p argument. > Check for case labels outside of range of original type here and > adjust them. > c/ > * c-typeck.c (struct c_switch): Remove outside_range_p member. > (c_start_case): Don't clear it. > (do_case): Adjust c_add_case_label caller. > (c_finish_case): Adjust c_do_switch_warnings caller. > cp/ > * decl.c (struct cp_switch): Remove outside_range_p member. > (push_switch): Don't clear it. > (pop_switch): Adjust c_do_switch_warnings caller. > (finish_case_label): Adjust c_add_case_label caller.
> + node = splay_tree_predecessor (cases, (splay_tree_key) min_value); ... > + if (CASE_HIGH ((tree) node->value) > + && tree_int_cst_compare (CASE_HIGH ((tree) node->value), > + min_value) >= 0) ... > + node = splay_tree_predecessor (cases, > + (splay_tree_key) min_value); .... > + node = splay_tree_lookup (cases, (splay_tree_key) max_value); > + if (node == NULL) > + node = splay_tree_predecessor (cases, (splay_tree_key) max_value); > + /* Handle a single node that might partially overlap the range. */ > + if (node > + && node->key > + && CASE_HIGH ((tree) node->value) > + && tree_int_cst_compare (CASE_HIGH ((tree) node->value), > + max_value) > 0) ... > + while ((node = splay_tree_successor (cases, > + (splay_tree_key) max_value)) Hmm, why are the code sections for dealing with the lower bound and upper bound asymmetrical? That is, why not start the upper bound consideration with splay_tree_successor? Jason
