On 09/13/2017 03:08 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 09/12/2017 05:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 09/12/2017 01:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> Hello. >>> >>> In transition to simple_case_node, I forgot to initialize m_high to m_low >>> if a case >>> does not have CASE_HIGH. >>> >>> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests. >>> >>> Ready to be installed? >>> Martin >>> >>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2017-09-11 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> >>> >>> PR middle-end/82154 >>> * stmt.c (struct simple_case_node): Assign low to high when >>> high is equal to null. >>> >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2017-09-11 Martin Liska <mli...@suse.cz> >>> >>> PR middle-end/82154 >>> * g++.dg/torture/pr82154.C: New test. >> OK. >> >> THough I have to wonder if we should unify the HIGH handling -- having >> two different conventions is bound to be confusing. >> >> In a CASE_LABEL_EXPR the CASE_HIGH can be NULL, which means the label >> refers to a singleton value that is found in CASE_LOW. >> >> That means we end up doing stuff like this: >> >> if (CASE_HIGH (elt)) >> maxval = fold_convert (index_type, CASE_HIGH (elt)); >> else >> maxval = fold_convert (index_type, CASE_LOW (elt)); >> >> >> >> You could legitimately argue for changing how this works for tree nodes >> so that there's always a non-null CASE_HIGH. > > Hi. > > Agree with you that we have a lot of code that does what you just described. > I tent to change IL representation, where CASE_HIGH is always non-null. > > $ git grep 'CASE_HIGH\>' | wc -l > 125 > > Which is reasonable amount of code that should be changed. I'll prepare patch > for that.
Hm, there's one question that pops up: Should we compare the values via pointer equality, or tree_int_cst_eq should be done? The later one can messy the code a bit. Martin > > Martin > >> >> jeff >> >
