Re: [PATCH 02/89] Introduce gimple_switch and use it in various places

[Jeff Law]

On 04/22/14 15:38, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 04/22/2014 10:13 AM, 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 )


I'm not keen on embedding assignments into conditionals like this, much less
embedding variable declarations as well.  I think David's original is perfect.
Likewise, though I am less annoyed by such things than I was in the 
past.  Perhaps that's an artifact of actually liking that kind of style 
for 'for' loops.


Jeff