On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 12:10 PM Matthias Kretz <m.kr...@gsi.de> wrote: > > On Tuesday, 7 December 2021 08:43:56 CET Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matthias Kretz <m.kr...@gsi.de> wrote: > > > While reading the hash_map code I noticed this inconsistency. Bootstrapped > > > and regtested on x86_64. OK for trunk? > > > > I've inspected two users of said overload and they return true. Did you > > look at the rest? I assume that bootstrapping and testing with asserting > > that the callback never returns false in that overload should succeed? > > That said, the inconsistency is bad - but how can we be sure we're not > > relying on that? I mean more than just bootstrapping and regtesting ;) > > I've checked all users now; and added more documentation. OK for trunk now?
OK. Thanks, Richard. > ---- 8< ---- > > The hash_map::traverse overload taking a non-const Value pointer breaks > if the callback returns false. The other overload should behave the > same. > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kretz <m.kr...@gsi.de> > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * hash-map.h (hash_map::traverse): Let both overloads behave the > same. > * predict.c (assert_is_empty): Return true, thus not changing > behavior. > --- > gcc/hash-map.h | 6 ++++-- > gcc/predict.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > -- > ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── > Dr. Matthias Kretz https://mattkretz.github.io > GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research https://gsi.de > stdₓ::simd > ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
