On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni <bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> <bilbotheelffri...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Currently this is accepted: >>> (for plus (mult div) >>> ...) >>> which is incorrect. This patch puts more error-checks on the user-defined >>> operator in for-pattern. >> >> Nicely spotted issue. But I prefer to fix it simpler like with the following >> which I applied. > Won't using get_operator() lookup the hash-table twice for a valid > user-defined operator ?
Sure - but who cares for a generator program. > I thought it would be be better instead to write another function > (insert_operator) to insert operator into hash-table, that does one > lookup. Well - I'd prefer easy maintainance for the code over optimization ;) Which means less lines of code == better. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > Prathamesh. >> >> Richard. >> >> 2014-10-28 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> >> >> * genmatch.c (parser::parse_for): Properly check for already >> defined operators. >> >> >>> * genmatch.c >>> (insert_operator): New function. >>> (parse_for): Call insert_operator. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Prathamesh
