On 10/31/14 11:02, David Malcolm wrote:
This file implements the entrypoints of the library's public API.
It performs error-checking at this boundary, before calling into the
jit-recording.h internal API.
gcc/jit/
* libgccjit.c: New.
---
gcc/jit/libgccjit.c | 1506 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 1506 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/jit/libgccjit.c
+
+#define IS_ASCII_ALPHA(CHAR) \
+ ( \
+ ((CHAR) >= 'a' && (CHAR) <='z') \
+ || \
+ ((CHAR) >= 'A' && (CHAR) <= 'Z') \
+ )
+
+#define IS_ASCII_DIGIT(CHAR) \
+ ((CHAR) >= '0' && (CHAR) <='9')
+
+#define IS_ASCII_ALNUM(CHAR) \
+ (IS_ASCII_ALPHA (CHAR) || IS_ASCII_DIGIT (CHAR))
Can't we rely on the C library to give us equivalents?
+
+/* TODO: mark failure branches as unlikely? */
+
Not likely worth the effort. And it'd be better to somehow mark
jit_error such that anytime a path unconditionally calls jit_error, the
whole path is considered unlikely.
I think it was Ball & Larus that had a predictor of this nature, I don't
recall its effectiveness offhand. But I'd rather be marking the
function than sprinlkling unlikely all over the actual codepaths.
+static bool
+compatible_types (gcc::jit::recording::type *ltype,
+ gcc::jit::recording::type *rtype)
All function definitions should have a block comment describing the
function and its arguments. This comment applies throughout the code
and needs to be addressed prior to commit. In fact I really can't even
continue review of this code due to the lack of comments -- I rely
heavily on them.
jeff
