On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:13:41AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Would you prefer to have say add_tree_to_fld_list that does what it does now
> > and has just 2 callers in find_decls_types_r and a new
> > maybe_add_tree_to_fld_list that would do
> > if (!fld->pset.add (t))
> > add_tree_to_fld_list (t, fld);
> > and change all the other add_tree_to_fld_list callers?
>
> Not sure if that's needed, if you leave find_decls_types_r alone then
> always doing the check should work, no?
Well, find_decls_types_r uses add_tree_to_fld_list, so the if (fld->pset.add
(t)) return; can't be in that function. If we want to simplify all the
other callers, so that they don't need to do it manually, then the only
options I see is call some other function in those spots that does this
additional check, or call another function that doesn't do that in the
two spots of find_decls_types_r, or add another argument to the function
say with default argument and test that argument before the fld->pset.add.
E.g. , bool do_add = true and if (do_add && fld->pset.add (t)) return;
and adjust the two calls in find_decls_types_r to call
add_tree_to_fld_list (t, fld, false);
Or keep the patch as is, do the tests before each but the two
add_tree_to_fld_list calls.
Or do you have yet another variant, or what from the above do you prefer?
Jakub
