Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(3540)

Issue 4956041: [pph] Independent pre-loaded cache for common nodes (Closed)

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
12 years, 8 months ago by Gabriel Charette
Modified:
12 years, 8 months ago
CC:
gcc-patches_gcc.gnu.org
Visibility:
Public.

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 3
Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+107 lines, -51 lines) Patch
M gcc/cp/pph.c View 1 chunk +2 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M gcc/cp/pph-streamer.h View 4 chunks +11 lines, -3 lines 0 comments Download
M gcc/cp/pph-streamer.c View 7 chunks +60 lines, -31 lines 1 comment Download
M gcc/cp/pph-streamer-in.c View 13 chunks +26 lines, -17 lines 2 comments Download
M gcc/cp/pph-streamer-out.c View 1 chunk +8 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 4
Gabriel Charette
This patch creates an independent cache, pph_preloaded_cache, which contains all common nodes which used to ...
12 years, 8 months ago (2011-08-25 01:07:25 UTC) #1
Diego Novillo
OK with a couple of nits below. Diego. http://codereview.appspot.com/4956041/diff/1/gcc/cp/pph-streamer-in.c File gcc/cp/pph-streamer-in.c (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4956041/diff/1/gcc/cp/pph-streamer-in.c#newcode155 gcc/cp/pph-streamer-in.c:155: || ...
12 years, 8 months ago (2011-08-25 12:35:21 UTC) #2
Gabriel Charette
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:35 AM, <dnovillo@google.com> wrote: > OK with a couple ...
12 years, 8 months ago (2011-08-25 17:17:35 UTC) #3
Diego Novillo
12 years, 8 months ago (2011-08-25 17:42:09 UTC) #4
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 13:17, Gabriel Charette <gchare@google.com> wrote:

> What do you mean? the || is aligned with the 'marker' entry above it.
> Do you want the || to be aligned? i.e.
> marker == PPH_RECORD_IREF
> || marker == PPH_RECORD_XREF
> || marker == PPH_RECORD_PREF
> ?

Yeah, this way.  Every operand of the predicate in its own line.

> Ya I had the same thought and same resolution. Relying on include_ix == -1U
> was already sketchy imo, and now adding another trigger on stream == NULL
> was just too much assumptions and dependence on the rest of the
> implementation I thought.

Sounds good.


Diego.
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b