On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@googlers.com> wrote: > Ping?
You didn't commit the ones I already approved? I don't want to go over them again ... Richard. > On 3/31/13, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@googlers.com> wrote: >> On 3/28/13, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mar 27, 2013 Lawrence Crowl <cr...@googlers.com> wrote: >>> > On 3/27/13, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > On Mar 23, 2013 Lawrence Crowl <cr...@googlers.com> wrote: >>> > > > This patch is a consolodation of the hash_table patches to >>> > > > the cxx-conversion branch. >>> > > > >>> > > > Update various hash tables from htab_t to hash_table. >>> > > > Modify types and calls to match. >>> > > >>> > > Ugh. Can you split it up somewhat ... like split target bits >>> > > away at least? Targets may prefer to keep the old hashes for >>> > > ease of branch maintainance. >>> > >>> > I will do that. >>> > >>> > > > * tree-ssa-live.c'var_map_base_init::tree_to_index >>> > > > >>> > > > New struct tree_int_map_hasher. >>> > > >>> > > I think this wants to be generalized - we have the common >>> > > tree_map/tree_decl_map and tree_int_map maps in tree.h - >>> > > those (and its users) should be tackled in a separate patch >>> > > by providing common hashtable trails implementations. >>> > >>> > I will investigate for a separate patch. >>> > >>> > > > Remove unused: >>> > > > >>> > > > htab_t scop::original_pddrs >>> > > > SCOP_ORIGINAL_PDDRS >>> > > > >>> > > > Remove unused: >>> > > > >>> > > > insert_loop_close_phis >>> > > > insert_guard_phis >>> > > > debug_ivtype_map >>> > > > ivtype_map_elt_info >>> > > > new_ivtype_map_elt >>> > > >>> > > Unused function/type removal are obvious changes. >>> > > >>> > > > Remove unused: >>> > > > dse.c bitmap clear_alias_sets >>> > > > dse.c bitmap disqualified_clear_alias_sets >>> > > > dse.c alloc_pool clear_alias_mode_pool >>> > > > dse.c dse_step2_spill >>> > > > dse.c dse_step5_spill >>> > > > graphds.h htab_t graph::indices >>> > > >>> > > See above. >>> > >>> > It wasn't obvious that the functions could be removed. :-) >>> > >>> > Are you saying you don't want these notations in the description? >>> >>> No, I was saying that removal of unused functions / types should be >>> committed separately and do not need approval as they are obvious. >>> If they are not obvious (I didn't look at that patch part), >>> then posting separately still helps ;) >> >> I've split out the removals to separate patches. The remaining >> work is in two independent pieces. The changes within the config >> directory and the changes outside that directory. The descriptions >> and patch are attached compressed due to mailer size issues. >> >> Okay for trunk? >> >> -- >> Lawrence Crowl >> > > > -- > Lawrence Crowl
