On 10/06/2015 01:39 AM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
void verify_insn_chain (void);
+static inline void checking_verify_insn_chain ();
static void fixup_fallthru_exit_predecessor (void);
static int can_delete_note_p (const rtx_note *);
static int can_delete_label_p (const rtx_code_label *);
[...]
@@ -3990,6 +3987,16 @@ verify_insn_chain (void)
gcc_assert (insn_cnt1 == insn_cnt2);
}
+
+/* Perform checks, if they were requested by corresponding flag. */
+
+static inline void
+checking_verify_insn_chain ()
+{
+ if (flag_checking)
+ verify_insn_chain ();
+}
+
There are many new such small inline functions, and I don't think they
buy us much over just writing out the pattern where they are called.
Also, just defined the function before its first use rather than writing
a forward declaration.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
index 3b8d594..7771514 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
@@ -1443,11 +1443,8 @@ refs_may_alias_p_1 (ao_ref *ref1, ao_ref *ref2, bool
tbaa_p)
tbaa_p);
/* We really do not want to end up here, but returning true is safe. */
-#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
- gcc_unreachable ();
-#else
+ gcc_checking_assert (false);
return true;
-#endif
}
I think the consensus has been to avoid assert (false), so this would be
if (checking)
gcc_unreachable ();
but maybe we really just want to do the gcc_unreachable unconditionally.
Bernd
