Re: [PATCH] Fix hash_map::traverse overload

2021-12-07 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 12:10 PM Matthias Kretz wrote: > > On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 08:43:56 CET Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matthias Kretz wrote: > > > While reading the hash_map code I noticed this inconsistency. Bootstrapped > > > and regtested on x86_64. OK for

Re: [PATCH] Fix hash_map::traverse overload

2021-12-07 Thread Matthias Kretz
On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 08:43:56 CET Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matthias Kretz wrote: > > While reading the hash_map code I noticed this inconsistency. Bootstrapped > > and regtested on x86_64. OK for trunk? > > I've inspected two users of said overload and they r

Re: [PATCH] Fix hash_map::traverse overload

2021-12-07 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Matthias Kretz wrote: > > On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 08:47:56 CET Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 8:43 AM Richard Biener > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matthias Kretz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While rea

Re: [PATCH] Fix hash_map::traverse overload

2021-12-07 Thread Matthias Kretz
On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 08:47:56 CET Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 8:43 AM Richard Biener > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matthias Kretz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > While reading the hash_map code I noticed this inconsistency. > > > Bootstrapped and

Re: [PATCH] Fix hash_map::traverse overload

2021-12-06 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 8:43 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matthias Kretz wrote: > > > > While reading the hash_map code I noticed this inconsistency. Bootstrapped > > and > > regtested on x86_64. OK for trunk? > > I've inspected two users of said overload and they

Re: [PATCH] Fix hash_map::traverse overload

2021-12-06 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matthias Kretz wrote: > > While reading the hash_map code I noticed this inconsistency. Bootstrapped and > regtested on x86_64. OK for trunk? I've inspected two users of said overload and they return true. Did you look at the rest? I assume that bootstrapping and

[PATCH] Fix hash_map::traverse overload

2021-12-06 Thread Matthias Kretz
While reading the hash_map code I noticed this inconsistency. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64. OK for trunk? The hash_map::traverse overload taking a non-const Value pointer breaks if the callback returns false. The other overload should behave the same. Signed-off-by: Matthias Kretz gcc