On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 03:17:58PM +0800, Pan Li via Gcc-patches wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * var-tracking.cc (DECL_OR_VALUE_OR_DEFAULT): New macro for
> clean code.
ChangeLog formatting shouldn't have spaces after the initial tab.
Furthermore, the entry doesn't describe what changes you've made.
It should start with:
* var-tracking.cc: Include mux-utils.h.
(decl_or_value): Changed from void * to
pointer_mux<tree_node, rtx_def>.
(DECL_OR_VALUE_OR_DEFAULT): Define.
etc.
> --- a/gcc/var-tracking.cc
> +++ b/gcc/var-tracking.cc
> @@ -116,9 +116,17 @@
> #include "fibonacci_heap.h"
> #include "print-rtl.h"
> #include "function-abi.h"
> +#include "mux-utils.h"
>
> typedef fibonacci_heap <long, basic_block_def> bb_heap_t;
>
> +/* A declaration of a variable, or an RTL value being handled like a
> + declaration by pointer_mux. */
> +typedef pointer_mux<tree_node, rtx_def> decl_or_value;
> +
> +#define DECL_OR_VALUE_OR_DEFAULT(ptr) \
> + ((ptr) ? decl_or_value (ptr) : decl_or_value ())
> +
> /* var-tracking.cc assumes that tree code with the same value as VALUE rtx
> code
> has no chance to appear in REG_EXPR/MEM_EXPRs and isn't a decl.
> Currently the value is the same as IDENTIFIER_NODE, which has such
> @@ -196,15 +204,21 @@ struct micro_operation
> };
>
>
> -/* A declaration of a variable, or an RTL value being handled like a
> - declaration. */
> -typedef void *decl_or_value;
> -
> /* Return true if a decl_or_value DV is a DECL or NULL. */
> static inline bool
> dv_is_decl_p (decl_or_value dv)
> {
> - return !dv || (int) TREE_CODE ((tree) dv) != (int) VALUE;
> + bool is_decl = !dv;
> +
> + if (dv)
> + {
> + if (dv.is_first ())
> + is_decl = (int) TREE_CODE (dv.known_first ()) != (int) VALUE;
> + else if (!dv.is_first () && !dv.is_second ())
> + is_decl = true;
> + }
> +
> + return is_decl;
I really don't understand why it needs to be so complicated.
decl_or_value is dv_is_decl_p if it is NULL or if it is a tree,
and is false if it is rtx VALUE, no other rtxes are expected.
pointer_mux<tree_node, rtx_def> should accept nullptr as being the first
one, so i'd expect just
/* Return true if a decl_or_value DV is a DECL or NULL. */
static inline bool
dv_is_decl_p (decl_or_value dv)
{
return dv.is_first ();
}
/* Return true if a decl_or_value is a VALUE rtl. */
static inline bool
dv_is_value_p (decl_or_value dv)
{
return dv.is_second ();
}
/* Return the decl in the decl_or_value. */
static inline tree
dv_as_decl (decl_or_value dv)
{
gcc_checking_assert (dv_is_decl_p (dv));
return dv.known_first ();
}
/* Return the value in the decl_or_value. */
static inline rtx
dv_as_value (decl_or_value dv)
{
gcc_checking_assert (dv_is_value_p (dv));
return dv.known_second ();
}
/* Return the opaque pointer in the decl_or_value. */
static inline void *
dv_as_opaque (decl_or_value dv)
{
return dv.is_first () ? (void *) dv.known_first ()
: (void *) dv.known_second ();
}
// Ideally dv_as_opaque would just return m_ptr but that
// is unfortunately private.
And define a hasher for decl_or_value now that it is a class
(that would hash/compare the m_ptr value or separately
dv.is_first () bool and dv_as_opaque pointer).
And then I'd hope you don't need to do any further changes
in the file.
Jakub
