On 8/8/19 5:55 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2019, Martin Liska wrote: > >> 2019-07-24 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> >> >> * fold-const.c (operand_equal_p): Rename to ... >> (operand_compare::operand_equal_p): ... this. >> (add_expr): Rename to ... >> (operand_compare::hash_operand): ... this. >> (operand_compare::operand_equal_valueize): Likewise. >> (operand_compare::hash_operand_valueize): Likewise. >> * fold-const.h (operand_equal_p): Set default >> value for last argument. >> (class operand_compare): New. > > Hmpf. A class without any data? That doesn't sound like a good design.
Yes, the base class (current operand_equal_p) does not have a data. But the ICF derive class has a data and e.g. func_checker::operand_equal_valueize will use m_label_bb_map.get (t1). Which are member data of class func_checker. > You seem to need it only to have the possibility of virtual functions, > i.e. fancy callbacks. AFAICS you only have one derived class, i.e. a > simple distinction of two cases. What do you think about encoding the > additional new (ICF) case in the (existing) 'flags' argument to > operand_equal_p (and in case the ICF flag is set simply call the > "callback" directly)? That's possible. I can add two more callbacks to the operand_equal_p function (hash_operand_valueize and operand_equal_valueize). Is Richi also supporting this approach? Thanks, Martin > IMHO that would also make the logic within > operand_equal_p clearer, because you don't have to think about all the > potential callback functions that might be called. > > > Ciao, > Michael. >
