On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 13:13 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 18:45 -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote: > > > --- a/gcc/tree-loop-distribution.c > > > +++ b/gcc/tree-loop-distribution.c > > > @@ -687,8 +687,9 @@ generate_loops_for_partition (struct loop *loop, > > > partition_t partition, > > > } > > > else if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_SWITCH) > > > { > > > + gimple_switch switch_stmt = stmt->as_a_gimple_switch (); > > > > maybe it would make more sense to do > > else if (gimple_switch switch_stmt = stmt->dyn_cast_gimple_switch ()) > > Thanks. Yes, or indeed something like: > > else if (gimple_switch switch_stmt = dyn_cast <gimple_switch> (stmt)) > > (modulo the "pointerness" issues mentioned in > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01334.html )
or indeed, something like: else if (gimple_switch switch_stmt = dyn_cast <gimple_switch> (stmt)) { to avoid an 83-character-wide line :) Hope that's the appropriate way to split such a line; I can never remember if one is supposed to put the linebreak before or after the =.