Hi, On Mon, 2 May 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> --- 348,367 ---- > >> bool insert_at_next_slot_p) > >> { > >> void **slot; > >> unsigned ix; > >> bool existed_p; > >> > >> gcc_assert (t); > >> > >> ! slot = pointer_map_insert (cache->node_map, t); > >> ! if (!*slot) > > > > ix might legitimately be zero. Hence this transformation is not > > equivalent. You might want to enter ix+1 into the cache with the > > appropriate adjustment at read-out. Same for the other places. > > Or not use index zero. I never like these sentinals. > Maybe better than also have to deal with ix + 1 wrapping ... We don't handle ix wrapping, why should we now suddenly care about ix+1 wrapping? Ciao, Michael.