> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:49 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Steve Ellcey > Subject: Re: [PATCH] pr57457 > > On 06/04/13 12:58, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > > > > > > Actually, you can eliminate the entire if-statement (i.e. remove > > if-statement and make the body unconditional). This is because, if > > flag_enable_cilkplus is true and is_cilkplus_reduce_builtin (fundecl) > > is true, then it would have returned vec_safe_length(values) and will > > not even get to this point in the first place. So, this is technically > > equivalent to if (1). So, can I remove that and check it in also? It > > passes all my regression tests. > I originally thought it could be eliminated as well, but after further > reflection I > couldn't convince myself it'd do the right thing for the case when > flag_enable_cilkplus is true but is_cilkplus_reduce_builtin was false. > > Note that triggering that code my be nontrivial, AFAICT we're suppressing a > diagnostic. So you're going to need to write invalid code to get into that > condition at the bottom of the loop at all.
OK, I will create one tomorrow morning. Thanks, Balaji V. Iyer. > > jeff
