On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2 May 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> Please remove the flags.
>
> Okay.
>
>> can you factor out this idiom to sth like gsi_new_seq_from_stmt () or so?
>> Or gimple_init_seq_pointers? Not necessarily exported.
>
> gimple_in
Hi,
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Please remove the flags.
Okay.
> can you factor out this idiom to sth like gsi_new_seq_from_stmt () or so?
> Or gimple_init_seq_pointers? Not necessarily exported.
gimple_init_singleton it is. The whole series is now at r187053.
Ciao,
Micha
On Wed, 2 May 2012 03:47:17 +0200 (CEST)
Michael Matz wrote:
> There's one thing I'd like an opinion about: I've added two new flags to
> gimple_statement_base: start_of_seq and end_of_seq, and I had to
> shorten the uid member by two bits for that. The two flags are used only
> for asserts (
Hi,
and this patch flips the switch. It removes the old seq_node and seq
structures, adds the prev/next to gimple_statement_base, merges gimple,
gimple_seq and gimple_seq_node and rewrites the helpers dealing with
sequences or iterators to deal with the data structure of a cyclic list in
the
