On 1/9/21 3:33 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jan 7, 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 12:34 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jan 4, 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
Thus, please remove uses of BREAK_FROM_IMM_USE_STMT
together with this patch.
And RETURN_FROM_IMM_USE_STMT, I sup
On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 9:33 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 12:34 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jan 4, 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thus, please remove uses of BREAK_FROM_IMM_USE_STMT
> >> > together with thi
On Jan 7, 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 12:34 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 4, 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> > Thus, please remove uses of BREAK_FROM_IMM_USE_STMT
>> > together with this patch.
>>
>> And RETURN_FROM_IMM_USE_STMT, I suppose?
> Sure.
Don
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 12:34 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jan 4, 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > Hmm - while the change looks good, doesn't it end up
> > calling end_imm_use_stmt_tranverse twice for those
> > uses still calling BREAK_FROM_IMM_USE_STMT?
>
> It does. I'd considered introduc
On Jan 4, 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
> Hmm - while the change looks good, doesn't it end up
> calling end_imm_use_stmt_tranverse twice for those
> uses still calling BREAK_FROM_IMM_USE_STMT?
It does. I'd considered introducing a separate method to call
end_imm_use_stmt_traverse if imm is not
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 11:03 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >> BTW, any reason why we are not (yet?) using something like:
> >>
> >> #define FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_STMT(STMT, ITER, SSAVAR) \
> >> for (auto_end_imm_use_stmt_traverse auto_end
