> On Fri, 22 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > > > > > And no, I'm hesitant to change operand_equal_p too much. It's > > > very much deep-rooted into GENERIC. > > > > OK, as another option, i can bring relevant logic from operand_equal_p > > to ipa-icf and separate it into the compare_operand class like I did. > > Use it in ipa-icf-gimple now and we can slowly turn other uses of > > operand_equal into the compare_operand users in middle end. > > > > I agree that operand_equal is bit crazy code and it does not handle quite > > few > > things we could do at gimple. I have nothing against going this direction. > > (after all I do not like touching fold-const much becuase it works on > > generic, > > gimple and FE non-generic and it is not well specified what it should do) > > Yes, I've played with the idea of a GIMPLE specific operand_equal_p > multiple times but then the changes required to operand_equal_p were > small all the times. And having one piece of code that does sth is > always good ... > > We might turn operand_equal_p to a "worker" (template?) that
Hmm, OK that is precisely what I was shooting for by this patch. I went by wrapping it to a class with valueize helper. It can be template, too, just it semed that having the single valueize function lets me do everything I need without actually needing to duplicate the code. I can get around templatizing it. Do you have some outline what interface would seem more fit> > operand_equal_p and gimple_operand_equal_p can share (with an extra > flag whether to turn on GIMPLE stuff and/or valueization). And > then simply provide explicit instantiations for the original > operand_equal_p and a new gimple_operand_equal_p. > > Of course we'll only know if we like that when seeing a patch that > does this ;0) > > Richard.
