From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 46379 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2015 15:32:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 45231 invoked by uid 89); 27 Aug 2015 15:32:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,NO_DNS_FOR_FROM,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: cam-smtp0.cambridge.arm.com Received: from fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com (HELO cam-smtp0.cambridge.arm.com) (217.140.96.140) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:32:05 +0000 Received: from e104536-lin.cambridge.arm.com (e104536-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.207.65]) by cam-smtp0.cambridge.arm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t7RFVvhJ028849; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:31:57 +0100 Received: from e104536-lin.cambridge.arm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by e104536-lin.cambridge.arm.com (8.13.8/8.11.6) with ESMTP id t7RFVvsk022077; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:31:57 +0100 Received: (from alalaw01@localhost) by e104536-lin.cambridge.arm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id t7RFVvcW022076; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:31:57 +0100 From: Alan Lawrence To: martin.jambor@suse.cz Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rguenther@suse.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Refactor completely_scalarize_var Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:41:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1440689508-22040-1-git-send-email-alan.lawrence@arm.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg01720.txt.bz2 Martin Jambor wrote: > > If you change what the function does, you have to change the comment > too. If I am not mistaken, even with the whole patch set applied, the > first sentence would still be: "Create total_scalarization accesses > for all scalar type fields in VAR and for VAR as a whole." And with > this change, only the part after "and" will remain true. Ah, thanks, I had misunderstood. I've deleted the bit before the 'and' and pushed the attached as r227264. Thanks, Alan --- gcc/tree-sra.c | 12 +++++------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c index 818c290..8b3a0ad 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-sra.c +++ b/gcc/tree-sra.c @@ -980,12 +980,11 @@ completely_scalarize_record (tree base, tree decl, HOST_WIDE_INT offset, } } -/* Create total_scalarization accesses for all scalar type fields in VAR and - for VAR as a whole. VAR must be of a RECORD_TYPE conforming to - type_consists_of_records_p. */ +/* Create a total_scalarization access for VAR as a whole. VAR must be of a + RECORD_TYPE conforming to type_consists_of_records_p. */ static void -completely_scalarize_var (tree var) +create_total_scalarization_access (tree var) { HOST_WIDE_INT size = tree_to_uhwi (DECL_SIZE (var)); struct access *access; @@ -994,8 +993,6 @@ completely_scalarize_var (tree var) access->expr = var; access->type = TREE_TYPE (var); access->grp_total_scalarization = 1; - - completely_scalarize_record (var, var, 0, var); } /* Return true if REF has an VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR somewhere in it. */ @@ -2529,7 +2526,8 @@ analyze_all_variable_accesses (void) if (tree_to_uhwi (TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (var))) <= max_scalarization_size) { - completely_scalarize_var (var); + create_total_scalarization_access (var); + completely_scalarize_record (var, var, 0, var); if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS)) { fprintf (dump_file, "Will attempt to totally scalarize "); -- 1.8.3