On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>>> My goal for GCC 4.8 is to do just that: Move switch expansion to
>>> GIMPLE and add value profiling for switch expressions.
>>
>> And the idea is to put all that code in tree-switch-co
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> My goal for GCC 4.8 is to do just that: Move switch expansion to
>> GIMPLE and add value profiling for switch expressions.
>
> And the idea is to put all that code in tree-switch-conversion.c. But
> there are a few clean-ups I wish to do o
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> The Go bits approved on IRC by Iant, the Fortran bits are obvious, and
> the rest was already approved. This is r186579 now.
And because I managed to commit from the wrong tree, the fixed commit
is r186580.
Index: gimplify.c
=
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> I suppose generic tree handling routines are confused by NULL TREE_TYPE
>> and thus changing the docs to void_type_node would be more appropriate.
>
> I don't agree with that. The
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I suppose generic tree handling routines are confused by NULL TREE_TYPE
> and thus changing the docs to void_type_node would be more appropriate.
I don't agree with that. The documented behavior is much older than
either the Fortran or th
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > I wonder about
> >
> > @@ -1575,6 +1575,9 @@ gimplify_switch_expr (tree *expr_p, gimple_seq *pr
> > tree switch_expr = *expr_p;
> > gimple_seq switch_body_seq = NULL;
> > enum gimplif
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I wonder about
>
> @@ -1575,6 +1575,9 @@ gimplify_switch_expr (tree *expr_p, gimple_seq *pr
> tree switch_expr = *expr_p;
> gimple_seq switch_body_seq = NULL;
> enum gimplify_status ret;
> + tree index_type = TREE_TYPE (switch_expr
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is another step towards moving GIMPLE_SWITCH expansion to an
> earlier point in the pipeline.
>
> With the attached patch, some of the logic from stmt.c:add_case_node()
> is moved to gimplify.c:gimplify_switch_expr(). This includes:
>
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> My goal for GCC 4.8 is to do just that: Move switch expansion to
>> GIMPLE and add value profiling for switch expressions.
>
> And the idea is to put all that code in tree-switch-conversion.c. But
> there are a few clean-ups I wish to do o
Hello,
This is another step towards moving GIMPLE_SWITCH expansion to an
earlier point in the pipeline.
With the attached patch, some of the logic from stmt.c:add_case_node()
is moved to gimplify.c:gimplify_switch_expr(). This includes:
* Code to drop case labels that are out of range for the sw
> My goal for GCC 4.8 is to do just that: Move switch expansion to
> GIMPLE and add value profiling for switch expressions.
And the idea is to put all that code in tree-switch-conversion.c. But
there are a few clean-ups I wish to do on that code before that.
First, there is a global pass info stru
11 matches
Mail list logo
