On 05/17/14 01:33, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I suppose we could put the onus on the users of the iterator to invoke
a "handle subrtxes of this code" routine once they know what the code is.
That could make things a bit ugly though. E.g.:
FOR_EACH_SUBRTX (iter, array, expr, NONCONST)
if (GET_CODE (*iter) == VALUE && CSELIB_VAL_PTR (*iter)->uid > minuid)
return true;
would become:
FOR_EACH_SUBRTX (iter, array, expr, NONCONST)
if (GET_CODE (*iter) == VALUE)
{
if (CSELIB_VAL_PTR (*iter)->uid > minuid)
return true;
iter.code_is (VALUE);
}
It began to feel like premature optimisation.
Understood. Thanks for poking at it.
There's something about FOR_EACH_RTX that feels like it needs a rethink,
but I haven't managed to put my head around it yet. I'll put it away
for a while.
So as far as the patch itself is concerned, are there any outstanding
issues?
jeff
