* Possible dead code in file lra-spills.cc
@ 2022-12-17 9:25 G.T.
2022-12-14 18:46 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: G.T. @ 2022-12-17 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
At line 276, lra_assert (spill_class != NO_REGS); would trigger
whenever execution reached here with spill_class equal to NO_REGS.
Seems to me that would never happen. Because one of the conditions in
the if statement right above it (line 265) catches spill_class ==
NO_REGS and causes the rest of the for loop to be skipped by executing
continue in the consequent of the if. So lra_assert never sees
spill_class == NO_REGS. That makes line 276 dead code, right?
Thanks.
GT.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Possible dead code in file lra-spills.cc
2022-12-17 9:25 Possible dead code in file lra-spills.cc G.T.
@ 2022-12-14 18:46 ` Richard Biener
2022-12-15 15:21 ` G.T.
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2022-12-14 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: G.T.; +Cc: gcc
> Am 14.12.2022 um 18:28 schrieb G.T. via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>:
>
> At line 276, lra_assert (spill_class != NO_REGS); would trigger
> whenever execution reached here with spill_class equal to NO_REGS.
> Seems to me that would never happen. Because one of the conditions in
> the if statement right above it (line 265) catches spill_class ==
> NO_REGS and causes the rest of the for loop to be skipped by executing
> continue in the consequent of the if. So lra_assert never sees
> spill_class == NO_REGS. That makes line 276 dead code, right?
Sometimes this serves as documentation to make the code more obvious to read. Depends on the distance of the redundant check.
Richard
> Thanks.
> GT.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Possible dead code in file lra-spills.cc
2022-12-14 18:46 ` Richard Biener
@ 2022-12-15 15:21 ` G.T.
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: G.T. @ 2022-12-15 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Biener; +Cc: gcc
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 937 bytes --]
Ok.
And as you point out it is redundant code rather than dead code, to be
precise.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022, 1:47 PM Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> > Am 14.12.2022 um 18:28 schrieb G.T. via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>:
> >
> > At line 276, lra_assert (spill_class != NO_REGS); would trigger
> > whenever execution reached here with spill_class equal to NO_REGS.
> > Seems to me that would never happen. Because one of the conditions in
> > the if statement right above it (line 265) catches spill_class ==
> > NO_REGS and causes the rest of the for loop to be skipped by executing
> > continue in the consequent of the if. So lra_assert never sees
> > spill_class == NO_REGS. That makes line 276 dead code, right?
>
> Sometimes this serves as documentation to make the code more obvious to
> read. Depends on the distance of the redundant check.
>
> Richard
>
>
> > Thanks.
> > GT.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-12-15 15:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-12-17 9:25 Possible dead code in file lra-spills.cc G.T.
2022-12-14 18:46 ` Richard Biener
2022-12-15 15:21 ` G.T.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).