On 06/20/2011 03:50 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 06/17/2011 05:43 PM, Dan McCabe wrote:
Beware! Here be dragons!
I think this will generate the wrong code for:
for (i = 0; i< 10; i++) {
switch (i) {
default: continue;
}
}
It seems like that will generate some approximation of:
for (i = 0; i< 10; i++) {
do {
continue;
break;
} while (true);
}
Right? This is why I had originally tracked loops and switch-statements
in a single stack. In this situation, you'd want to set a "do a
continue" flag in the switch-statement and emit a break (from the
switch). Something like:
for (i = 0; i< 10; i++) {
bool do_cont = false;
do {
do_cont = true;
break;
break;
} while (true);
if (do_cont)
continue;
}
Yikes! Looks like you tripped over one of those dragons :(.
Using a do_cont variable (or similar device) feels kludgey to me. I've
been mulling this over for the last couple of days while I did other
things and I think the right way to do this might be to get rid of the
use of "loop" altogether.
But the devil is in the details, which I haven't worked out yet. Going
back to the unified loop/switch stack might be needed, though.
cheers, danm
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
