[PATCH 24/35] Change use to type-based pool allocator in tree-ssa-reassoc.c.

[mliska]

gcc/ChangeLog:

2015-04-30  Martin Liska  <mli...@suse.cz>

        * tree-ssa-reassoc.c (add_to_ops_vec): Use new type-based pool 
allocator.
        (add_repeat_to_ops_vec): Likewise.
        (get_ops): Likewise.
        (maybe_optimize_range_tests): Likewise.
        (init_reassoc): Likewise.
        (fini_reassoc): Likewise.
---
 gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c | 19 ++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
index 0c67379..c1a7f4b9 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
@@ -235,7 +235,8 @@ typedef struct operand_entry
   unsigned int count;
 } *operand_entry_t;
 
-static alloc_pool operand_entry_pool;
+static pool_allocator<operand_entry> operand_entry_pool ("operand entry pool",
+                                                        30);
 
 /* This is used to assign a unique ID to each struct operand_entry
    so that qsort results are identical on different hosts.  */
@@ -619,7 +620,7 @@ sort_by_operand_rank (const void *pa, const void *pb)
 static void
 add_to_ops_vec (vec<operand_entry_t> *ops, tree op)
 {
-  operand_entry_t oe = (operand_entry_t) pool_alloc (operand_entry_pool);
+  operand_entry_t oe = operand_entry_pool.allocate ();
 
   oe->op = op;
   oe->rank = get_rank (op);
@@ -635,7 +636,7 @@ static void
 add_repeat_to_ops_vec (vec<operand_entry_t> *ops, tree op,
                       HOST_WIDE_INT repeat)
 {
-  operand_entry_t oe = (operand_entry_t) pool_alloc (operand_entry_pool);
+  operand_entry_t oe = operand_entry_pool.allocate ();
 
   oe->op = op;
   oe->rank = get_rank (op);
@@ -2990,7 +2991,7 @@ get_ops (tree var, enum tree_code code, 
vec<operand_entry_t> *ops,
        && !get_ops (rhs[i], code, ops, loop)
        && has_single_use (rhs[i]))
       {
-       operand_entry_t oe = (operand_entry_t) pool_alloc (operand_entry_pool);
+       operand_entry_t oe = operand_entry_pool.allocate ();
 
        oe->op = rhs[i];
        oe->rank = code;
@@ -3223,8 +3224,7 @@ maybe_optimize_range_tests (gimple stmt)
              && has_single_use (rhs))
            {
              /* Otherwise, push the _234 range test itself.  */
-             operand_entry_t oe
-               = (operand_entry_t) pool_alloc (operand_entry_pool);
+             operand_entry_t oe = operand_entry_pool.allocate ();
 
              oe->op = rhs;
              oe->rank = code;
@@ -3256,8 +3256,7 @@ maybe_optimize_range_tests (gimple stmt)
                           loop_containing_stmt (stmt))))
        {
          /* Or push the GIMPLE_COND stmt itself.  */
-         operand_entry_t oe
-           = (operand_entry_t) pool_alloc (operand_entry_pool);
+         operand_entry_t oe = operand_entry_pool.allocate ();
 
          oe->op = NULL;
          oe->rank = (e->flags & EDGE_TRUE_VALUE)
@@ -5035,8 +5034,6 @@ init_reassoc (void)
 
   memset (&reassociate_stats, 0, sizeof (reassociate_stats));
 
-  operand_entry_pool = create_alloc_pool ("operand entry pool",
-                                         sizeof (struct operand_entry), 30);
   next_operand_entry_id = 0;
 
   /* Reverse RPO (Reverse Post Order) will give us something where
@@ -5085,7 +5082,7 @@ fini_reassoc (void)
                            reassociate_stats.pows_created);
 
   delete operand_rank;
-  free_alloc_pool (operand_entry_pool);
+  operand_entry_pool.release ();
   free (bb_rank);
   plus_negates.release ();
   free_dominance_info (CDI_POST_DOMINATORS);
-- 
2.1.4