[C++ PATCH] Small performance improvement for constexpr_call_hasher::equal (PR c++/84684)

[Jakub Jelinek]

Hi!

This doesn't actually fix this PR (Marek is working on that), but
just something I've noticed while analyzing the PR.
We have the hashes saved in the structure (to speed up hash table
expansion), so it is a waste not to test those also in the equal hook,
by giving up cheaply in cases of hash table collisions.

Additionally, the method returns bool, so this patch uses true/false
instead of 1/0.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?

2018-03-05  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>

        PR c++/84684
        * constexpr.c (constexpr_call_hasher::equal): Return false if
        lhs->hash != rhs->hash.  Change return 1 to return true and
        return 0 to return false.

--- gcc/cp/constexpr.c.jj       2018-03-05 16:11:08.510165108 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c  2018-03-05 16:14:06.130229884 +0100
@@ -1033,9 +1033,11 @@ constexpr_call_hasher::equal (constexpr_
   tree lhs_bindings;
   tree rhs_bindings;
   if (lhs == rhs)
-    return 1;
+    return true;
+  if (lhs->hash != rhs->hash)
+    return false;
   if (!constexpr_fundef_hasher::equal (lhs->fundef, rhs->fundef))
-    return 0;
+    return false;
   lhs_bindings = lhs->bindings;
   rhs_bindings = rhs->bindings;
   while (lhs_bindings != NULL && rhs_bindings != NULL)
@@ -1044,7 +1046,7 @@ constexpr_call_hasher::equal (constexpr_
       tree rhs_arg = TREE_VALUE (rhs_bindings);
       gcc_assert (TREE_TYPE (lhs_arg) == TREE_TYPE (rhs_arg));
       if (!cp_tree_equal (lhs_arg, rhs_arg))
-        return 0;
+        return false;
       lhs_bindings = TREE_CHAIN (lhs_bindings);
       rhs_bindings = TREE_CHAIN (rhs_bindings);
     }

        Jakub