On 6/6/19 1:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 6/6/19 7:02 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 6/6/19 6:20 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
The code is dead:
757 char *
758 get_lsm_tmp_name (tree ref, unsigned n, const char *suffix)
759 {
760 char ns[2];
761
762 lsm_tmp_name_length = 0;
763 gen_lsm_tmp_name (ref);
764 lsm_tmp_name_add ("_lsm");
765 if (n < 10)
766 {
767 ns[0] = '0' + n;
768 ns[1] = 0;
769 lsm_tmp_name_add (ns);
770 }
771 return lsm_tmp_name;
772 if (suffix != NULL)
773 lsm_tmp_name_add (suffix);
774 }
Andrew is it a typo or an issue?
Thanks,
Martin
Dunno. It was written in 2005.
2005-08-16 Zdenek Dvorak <dvor...@suse.cz>
* tree-ssa-loop-im.c (MAX_LSM_NAME_LENGTH, lsm_tmp_name,
lsm_tmp_name_length): New.
(lsm_tmp_name_add, gen_lsm_tmp_name, get_lsm_tmp_name): New
functions.
(schedule_sm): Use get_lsm_tmp_name instead of "lsm_tmp".
The whole thing is a little odd since you cant get more than 10 tmp
names without suddenly all being the same name.
I dont know anything about the code, my guess is the return should be
after the 'if'. the only callers appears to pass ~0 as the value for N.
execute_sm_if_changed_flag_set() adds '_flag' as a suffix and
execute_sm() calls it without the suffix.
My guess is the return should be moved to the bottom so that those 2 get
different names, so it could be a problem as it is. Someone who know
the loop code better could comment..
So it looks like the code was "sensible" here:
ad4a85adaf8f (rakdver 2007-05-24 16:09:26 +0000 1844) get_lsm_tmp_name (tree
ref, unsigned n)
840580de9cd8 (rakdver 2005-08-17 14:00:52 +0000 1845) {
ad4a85adaf8f (rakdver 2007-05-24 16:09:26 +0000 1846) char ns[2];
ad4a85adaf8f (rakdver 2007-05-24 16:09:26 +0000 1847)
840580de9cd8 (rakdver 2005-08-17 14:00:52 +0000 1848) lsm_tmp_name_length
= 0;
840580de9cd8 (rakdver 2005-08-17 14:00:52 +0000 1849) gen_lsm_tmp_name
(ref);
840580de9cd8 (rakdver 2005-08-17 14:00:52 +0000 1850) lsm_tmp_name_add
("_lsm");
ad4a85adaf8f (rakdver 2007-05-24 16:09:26 +0000 1851) if (n < 10)
ad4a85adaf8f (rakdver 2007-05-24 16:09:26 +0000 1852) {
ad4a85adaf8f (rakdver 2007-05-24 16:09:26 +0000 1853) ns[0] = '0' + n;
ad4a85adaf8f (rakdver 2007-05-24 16:09:26 +0000 1854) ns[1] = 0;
ad4a85adaf8f (rakdver 2007-05-24 16:09:26 +0000 1855) lsm_tmp_name_add
(ns);
ad4a85adaf8f (rakdver 2007-05-24 16:09:26 +0000 1856) }
840580de9cd8 (rakdver 2005-08-17 14:00:52 +0000 1857) return lsm_tmp_name;
840580de9cd8 (rakdver 2005-08-17 14:00:52 +0000 1858) }
But got scrambled as part of your change to move things around here:
commit f86b328b32d171e9f2c5274ea7bc2dd3e92ad827
Author: amacleod <amacleod@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4>
Date: Wed Oct 9 13:09:23 2013 +0000
* tree-flow.h: Move some protoypes. Include new tree-ssa-loop.h.
(struct affine_iv, struct tree_niter_desc): Move to
tree-ssa-loop.h.
(enum move_pos): Move to tree-ssa-loop-im.h
* cfgloop.h: Move some prototypes.
(gcov_type_to_double_int): relocate from tree-ssa-loop.niter.c.
* tree-flow-inline.h (loop_containing_stmt): Move to
tree-ssa-loop.h.
* tree-ssa-loop.h: New File. Include other tree-ssa-loop-*.h
files.
(struct affine_iv, struct tree_niter_desc): Relocate from
tree-flow.h.
(loop_containing_stmt): Relocate from tree-flow-inline.h.
* tree-ssa-loop-ch.c: (do_while_loop_p): Make static.
* tree-ssa-loop-im.c (for_each_index): Move to tree-ssa-loop.c.
(enum move_pos): Relocate here.
(lsm_tmp_name_add, gen_lsm_tmp_name, get_lsm_tmp_name): Move to
tree-ssa-loop.c.
[ ... ]
Jeff
and more importantly,
(get_lsm_tmp_name): Relocate and add suffix parameter.
must have been some sort of factoring going on.. and those lines got
missed. doesnt seem to have ever afffected anything eh :-)
Anyway, then yes, the return should be moved to the bottom to the
function where it belongs :-),
Andrew
