Richard Guenther wrote on 04/10/07 11:02: > Well, we now have a tcc_comparison for example - is the gimple statement code > something like that? Or will the grouping of gimple statement codes > to code classes > persist? If we were able to encode the class directly in the gimple > statement we > can avoid a memory reference to look up the operands class.
For most situations, I would like to avoid the class lookup and be able to go off the statement code directly. I have to admit that I am not totally convinced that this promotion of subcodes to first-level codes is a good idea. Richard suggested it to avoid having to lookup the subcode when recognizing frequent codes like copy assignments. But that also means that we now have to add more cases to switch() and or need || predicates to determine what kind of GS_ASSIGN we are dealing with. I'm ready to be convinced either way. OTOH, either approach would not make the design drastically different. We could explore both options and get numbers.
