On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote: > "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Richard Sandiford >> <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> No one is listed to review genrecog.c. Could global reviewers comment >>>> on my patch? >>> >>> FWIW, one argument against this form of the change: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg02159.html >> >> What you suggested is quite intrusive. I don't believe my approach >> is more "hackish"/(ASCII-specific) than what we have today. > > OK, I suppose I should back my objection up with a patch. > Rather than use strings, it uses a one-to-one mapping between > positions and position objects. I agree it's more intrusive, > but it's not that much more code. It also makes some operations > cheaper. > > I diffed the old and new insn-recog.cs on x86_64-linux-gnu. > The only difference was the removal of some: > > tem = peep2_next_insn (0); > x1 = PATTERN (tem); > > sequences. In the old code, these came from make_insn_sequence > using 'A' as the c_test position for single-instruction peepholes. > Elsewhere we try to avoid calling peep2_next_insn (0), because its > pattern is already available as x0, so I think this is an improvement. > ("tem" and "x1" aren't part of the .md file interface, and AFAICT, > no .md files are sneakily using them regardless.) > > Bootstrapped & regresion-tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to install? > > Is it OK to remove the static forward declarations too? > > Richard > > > gcc/ > PR rtl-optimization/48575 > * genrecog.c (position_type): New enum. > (position): New structure. > (decision): Use position structure instead of a string. > (root_pos, peep2_insn_pos_list): New variables. > (next_position, compare_positions): New functions. > (new_decision): Use position structures instead of strings. > (maybe_both_true): Likewise. > (change_state): Likewise. > (write_tree): Likewise. > (make_insn_sequence): Likewise. >
Appreciate it. Thanks. -- H.J.
