hi, I'm only commenting on algorithmic stuff at this point, you should make sure this doesn't regress anything in make check. This stuff only effects code using omp stuff so compiling random c++ is unlikely to test this code at all.
Also please follow the style in https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html and usually try to make new code similar to what's around it. @@ -384,7 +386,7 @@ new_omp_context (enum omp_region_type region_type) c = XCNEW (struct gimplify_omp_ctx); c->outer_context = gimplify_omp_ctxp; - c->variables = splay_tree_new (splay_tree_compare_decl_uid, 0, 0); + //c->variables = splay_tree_new (splay_tree_compare_decl_uid, 0, 0); I don't think this is what you want, xcnew is a calloc wrapper and doesn't call the ctor for gimplify_omp_ctx. For now placement new is probably the simplest way to get what you want. -static void -delete_omp_context (struct gimplify_omp_ctx *c) -{ - splay_tree_delete (c->variables); - delete c->privatized_types; - XDELETE (c); -} hm, why? -gimplify_adjust_omp_clauses_1 (splay_tree_node n, void *data) +gimplify_adjust_omp_clauses_1 (std::pair<tree, unsigned> n, void *data) You can now change the type of data from void * to const gimplify_adjust_omp_clauses_data * thanks! Trev On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 07:32:03PM +0000, Aditya K wrote: > You're right. I'll change this to: > > /* A stable comparison functor to sort trees. */ > struct tree_compare_decl_uid { > bool operator ()(const tree &xa, const tree &xb) const > { > return DECL_UID (xa) < DECL_UID (xb); > } > }; > > New patch attached. > > > Thanks, > -Aditya > > > ---------------------------------------- > > Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:02:11 +0000 > > Subject: Re: Proposal for adding splay_tree_find (to find elements without > > updating the nodes). > > From: jwakely....@gmail.com > > To: hiradi...@msn.com > > CC: richard.guent...@gmail.com; stevenb....@gmail.com; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > > > Are you sure your compare_variables functor is correct? > > > > Subtracting the two values seems very strange for a strict weak ordering. > > > > (Also "compare_variables" is a pretty poor name!) >
