> Since this copy_propagation_state covers just the acp and not the kills > list (whcih is still part of the copy propagation state in the visitor > class), could we call it "acp"?
I'm considering moving the kills list inside that state, hence the more general name. > > @@ -191,26 +283,21 @@ > > ir_copy_propagation_elements_visitor::visit_enter(ir_function_signature *ir) > > exec_list *orig_kills = this->kills; > > bool orig_killed_all = this->killed_all; > > > > - hash_table *orig_lhs_ht = lhs_ht; > > - hash_table *orig_rhs_ht = rhs_ht; > > - > > this->kills = new(mem_ctx) exec_list; > > this->killed_all = false; > > > > - create_acp(); > > + copy_propagation_state *orig_state = state; > > + this->state = new(mem_ctx) copy_propagation_state(mem_ctx, lin_ctx); > > > > visit_list_elements(this, &ir->body); > > > > - ralloc_free(this->kills); > > - > > - destroy_acp(); > > + delete this->state; > > + this->state = orig_state; > > Don't you want destroy_acp()'s body in ~copy_propagation_state()? We allocate the tables themselves using the state as a context, so we don't need to explicitly destroy them. Added a comment about this. Thanks, Caio _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
