On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 13:13 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 18:45 -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> > > --- a/gcc/tree-loop-distribution.c
> > > +++ b/gcc/tree-loop-distribution.c
> > > @@ -687,8 +687,9 @@ generate_loops_for_partition (struct loop *loop,
> > > partition_t partition,
> > > }
> > > else if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_SWITCH)
> > > {
> > > + gimple_switch switch_stmt = stmt->as_a_gimple_switch ();
> >
> > maybe it would make more sense to do
> > else if (gimple_switch switch_stmt = stmt->dyn_cast_gimple_switch ())
>
> Thanks. Yes, or indeed something like:
>
> else if (gimple_switch switch_stmt = dyn_cast <gimple_switch> (stmt))
>
> (modulo the "pointerness" issues mentioned in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01334.html )
or indeed, something like:
else if (gimple_switch switch_stmt =
dyn_cast <gimple_switch> (stmt))
{
to avoid an 83-character-wide line :)
Hope that's the appropriate way to split such a line; I can never
remember if one is supposed to put the linebreak before or after the =.
