On 03/05/12 11:16, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 03/05/2012 08:54 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
(struct tm_region **) xcalloc (sizeof (struct tm_region *),
- n_basic_blocks + NUM_FIXED_BLOCKS + 2);
+ last_basic_block + NUM_FIXED_BLOCKS);
This is ok.
I was confused for a moment by the "worklist" variable name, which
suggests a queue. I'd also suggest that you change to use a vec,
rather than callocing yourself, and would have caught the memory
I thought there'd be a lot less overhead by callocing the value myself.
Is the overhead negligible?
I can certainly make it a VEC in a follow up patch if you want, though
I'll commit this now so I can at get Rainer and Torvald happy while I do so.