On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > On 08/18/2017 12:25 PM, Martin Liška wrote: >> On 08/18/2017 11:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: >>>> On 08/14/2017 10:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>>>> Hmm, but the existing "lowering" part is called from the >>>>> switch-conversion pass. So >>>>> I'm not sure a new file is good. >>>> >>>> Good, I'm not against having that in a single file. So new version of the >>>> patch >>>> does that. >>>> >>>> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests. >>>> >>>> Ready to be installed? >>> >>> Hmm, I see you duplicate add_case_node for example. Is that just temporary? >>> If not can you please factor out the data structure and common code? >>> (case.[Ch]?) >> >> You are right. As we'll generate just jump table in stmt.c the proper fix is >> to remove >> all usages of 'case_node' in the file because simple iteration of labels >> will work fine. >> Let me do it incrementally to minimize fall out :) > > Hello. > > So lesson learned. I should follow your recommendation and make the clean-up > in stmt.c. I didn't > so adding new variant of case_node with a different size caused bootstrap > failure on aarch64 and > it was quite hard to debug. So sending updated version of the patch which has > cleaned up stmt.c. > > Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests. > Same of aarch64-linux-gnu. > > Ready to be installed?
No ChangeLog entry for tree-switch-conversion.c? At least you added make_pass_lower_switch and friends. Ok with a little more verbose changelog. Thanks and sorry for the delay, Richard. > Martin >> >> Martin >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Richard. >>> >>>> Martin >> >
