On Fri, 4 Mar 2016, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 17:36 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Jesper Broge Jørgensen
<jesperbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/16 13:22, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 01/19/2016 12:47 PM, Jesper Broge Jørgensen wrote:
Here is the reformatted patch:
This will probably have to wait until stage1.
+ const int code = GET_CODE (op2);
+ if (code != IOR)
+ {
+ if (code == EQ_ATTR)
All the formatting still looks completely mangled. This was
probably done
by your mailer. Please try attaching the diff as text/plain.
Bernd
Hi i send the patch back as an attatchment as requested about two
weeks ago
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01256.html) but i
have not
received any response.
If it has to wait for stage 1 are there anything else i can do for
the patch
untill then?
I still suggest to try making write_test_expr() avoid emitting
redundant parentheses for chains of || or &&, which would fix the
original issue all the same. Previously you claimed that such a
change would not be simpler than your current patch, but I gave it a
quick try and ended up with a much smaller patch:
gcc/genattrtab.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Patrick, did you forget to attach the patch? I see the diffstat, but
no patch.
Here it is:
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] Reduce nesting of parentheses in conditionals generated by
genattrtab
gcc/ChangeLog:
* genattrtab.c (write_test_expr): New parameter EMIT_PARENS
which defaults to true. Emit an outer pair of parentheses only if
EMIT_PARENS. When continuing a chain of && or ||, don't emit
parentheses for the right-hand operand.
---
gcc/genattrtab.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/genattrtab.c b/gcc/genattrtab.c
index b64d8b9..e2ccf1f 100644
--- a/gcc/genattrtab.c
+++ b/gcc/genattrtab.c
@@ -3432,16 +3432,16 @@ find_attrs_to_cache (rtx exp, bool create)
#define FLG_OUTSIDE_AND 8
static unsigned int
-write_test_expr (FILE *outf, rtx exp, unsigned int attrs_cached, int flags)
+write_test_expr (FILE *outf, rtx exp, unsigned int attrs_cached, int flags,
+ bool emit_parens = true)
{
int comparison_operator = 0;
RTX_CODE code;
struct attr_desc *attr;
- /* In order not to worry about operator precedence, surround our part of
- the expression with parentheses. */
+ if (emit_parens)
+ fprintf (outf, "(");
- fprintf (outf, "(");
code = GET_CODE (exp);
switch (code)
{
@@ -3575,8 +3575,18 @@ write_test_expr (FILE *outf, rtx exp, unsigned int
attrs_cached, int flags)
|| GET_CODE (XEXP (exp, 1)) == EQ_ATTR
|| (GET_CODE (XEXP (exp, 1)) == NOT
&& GET_CODE (XEXP (XEXP (exp, 1), 0)) == EQ_ATTR)))
- attrs_cached
- = write_test_expr (outf, XEXP (exp, 1), attrs_cached, flags);
+ {
+ bool need_parens = true;
+
+ /* No need to emit parentheses around the right-hand operand if we are
+ continuing a chain of && or ||. */
+ if (GET_CODE (XEXP (exp, 1)) == code)
+ need_parens = false;
+
+ attrs_cached
+ = write_test_expr (outf, XEXP (exp, 1), attrs_cached, flags,
+ need_parens);
+ }
else
write_test_expr (outf, XEXP (exp, 1), attrs_cached,
flags | comparison_operator);
@@ -3794,7 +3804,9 @@ write_test_expr (FILE *outf, rtx exp, unsigned int
attrs_cached, int flags)
GET_RTX_NAME (code));
}
- fprintf (outf, ")");
+ if (emit_parens)
+ fprintf (outf, ")");
+
return attrs_cached;
}
--
2.8.0.rc0.11.g9bfbc33
