Re: [PATCH RFA] tree-iterator: C++11 range-for and tree_stmt_iterator
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 3:56 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> Ping.
The non-C++ parts are OK.
Richard.
> On 5/17/21 1:58 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 5/17/21 3:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 2:23 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 5/13/21 1:26 PM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On 5/1/21 12:29 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Like my recent patch to add ovl_range and lkp_range in the C++
> > front end,
> > this patch adds the tsi_range adaptor for using C++11 range-based
> > 'for' with
> > a STATEMENT_LIST, e.g.
> >
> > for (tree stmt : tsi_range (stmt_list)) { ... }
> >
> > This also involves adding some operators to tree_stmt_iterator that
> > are
> > needed for range-for iterators, and should also be useful in code that
> > uses
> > the iterators directly.
> >
> > The patch updates the suitable loops in the C++ front end, but does
> > not
> > touch any loops elsewhere in the compiler.
> >>>
> >>> I like the modernization of the loops.
> >>
> >> The only worry I have (and why I stopped looking at range-for) is that
> >> this adds another style of looping over stmts without opening the
> >> possibility to remove another or even unify all of them. That's because
> >> range-for isn't powerful enough w/o jumping through hoops and/or
> >> we cannot use what appearantly ranges<> was intended for (fix
> >> this limitation).
> >
> > The range-for enabled by my patch simplifies the common case of simple
> > iteration over elements; that seems worth doing to me even if it doesn't
> > replace all loops. Just as FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT isn't suitable for all
> > loops over a vector.
> >
> >> That said, if some C++ literate could see if for example
> >> what gimple-iterator.h provides can be completely modernized
> >> then that would be great of course.
> >>
> >> There's stuff like reverse iteration
> >
> > This is typically done with the reverse_iterator<> adaptor, which we
> > could get from or duplicate. I didn't see enough reverse
> > iterations to make it seem worth the bother.
> >
> >> iteration skipping debug stmts,
> >
> > There you can move the condition into the loop:
> >
> > if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_DEBUG)
> > continue;
> >
> >> compares of iterators like gsi_one_before_end_p, etc.
> >
> > Certainly anything where you want to mess with the iterators directly
> > doesn't really translate to range-for.
> >
> >> Given my failed tries (but I'm a C++ illiterate) my TODO list now
> >> only contains turning the iterators into STL style ones, thus
> >> gsi_stmt (it) -> *it, gsi_next () -> ++it, etc. - but even
> >> it != end_p looks a bit awkward there.
> >
> > Well, it < end_val is pretty typical for loops involving integer
> > iterators. But you don't have to use that style if you'd rather not.
> > You could continue to use gsi_end_p, or just *it, since we know that *it
> > is NULL at the end of the sequence.
> >
> >>> I can't find anything terribly wrong with the iterator but let me
> >>> at least pick on some nits ;)
> >>>
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * tree-iterator.h (struct tree_stmt_iterator): Add operator++,
> > operator--, operator*, operator==, and operator!=.
> > (class tsi_range): New.
> >
> > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * constexpr.c (build_data_member_initialization): Use tsi_range.
> > (build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers): Likewise.
> > (constexpr_fn_retval, cxx_eval_statement_list): Likewise.
> > (potential_constant_expression_1): Likewise.
> > * coroutines.cc (await_statement_expander): Likewise.
> > (await_statement_walker): Likewise.
> > * module.cc (trees_out::core_vals): Likewise.
> > * pt.c (tsubst_expr): Likewise.
> > * semantics.c (set_cleanup_locs): Likewise.
> > ---
> >gcc/tree-iterator.h | 28 +++-
> >gcc/cp/constexpr.c | 42
> > ++
> >gcc/cp/coroutines.cc | 10 --
> >gcc/cp/module.cc | 5 ++---
> >gcc/cp/pt.c | 5 ++---
> >gcc/cp/semantics.c | 5 ++---
> >6 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/tree-iterator.h b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
> > index 076fff8644c..f57456bb473 100644
> > --- a/gcc/tree-iterator.h
> > +++ b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
> > +/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
> > -*- C++ -*-
> > Copyright (C) 2003-2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > Contributed by Andrew MacLeod
> > @@ -32,6 +32,13 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
> >struct tree_stmt_iterator {
> > struct
Re: [PATCH RFA] tree-iterator: C++11 range-for and tree_stmt_iterator
Ping.
On 5/17/21 1:58 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/17/21 3:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 2:23 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 5/13/21 1:26 PM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
Ping.
On 5/1/21 12:29 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Like my recent patch to add ovl_range and lkp_range in the C++
front end,
this patch adds the tsi_range adaptor for using C++11 range-based
'for' with
a STATEMENT_LIST, e.g.
for (tree stmt : tsi_range (stmt_list)) { ... }
This also involves adding some operators to tree_stmt_iterator that
are
needed for range-for iterators, and should also be useful in code that
uses
the iterators directly.
The patch updates the suitable loops in the C++ front end, but does
not
touch any loops elsewhere in the compiler.
I like the modernization of the loops.
The only worry I have (and why I stopped looking at range-for) is that
this adds another style of looping over stmts without opening the
possibility to remove another or even unify all of them. That's because
range-for isn't powerful enough w/o jumping through hoops and/or
we cannot use what appearantly ranges<> was intended for (fix
this limitation).
The range-for enabled by my patch simplifies the common case of simple
iteration over elements; that seems worth doing to me even if it doesn't
replace all loops. Just as FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT isn't suitable for all
loops over a vector.
That said, if some C++ literate could see if for example
what gimple-iterator.h provides can be completely modernized
then that would be great of course.
There's stuff like reverse iteration
This is typically done with the reverse_iterator<> adaptor, which we
could get from or duplicate. I didn't see enough reverse
iterations to make it seem worth the bother.
iteration skipping debug stmts,
There you can move the condition into the loop:
if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_DEBUG)
continue;
compares of iterators like gsi_one_before_end_p, etc.
Certainly anything where you want to mess with the iterators directly
doesn't really translate to range-for.
Given my failed tries (but I'm a C++ illiterate) my TODO list now
only contains turning the iterators into STL style ones, thus
gsi_stmt (it) -> *it, gsi_next () -> ++it, etc. - but even
it != end_p looks a bit awkward there.
Well, it < end_val is pretty typical for loops involving integer
iterators. But you don't have to use that style if you'd rather not.
You could continue to use gsi_end_p, or just *it, since we know that *it
is NULL at the end of the sequence.
I can't find anything terribly wrong with the iterator but let me
at least pick on some nits ;)
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-iterator.h (struct tree_stmt_iterator): Add operator++,
operator--, operator*, operator==, and operator!=.
(class tsi_range): New.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.c (build_data_member_initialization): Use tsi_range.
(build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers): Likewise.
(constexpr_fn_retval, cxx_eval_statement_list): Likewise.
(potential_constant_expression_1): Likewise.
* coroutines.cc (await_statement_expander): Likewise.
(await_statement_walker): Likewise.
* module.cc (trees_out::core_vals): Likewise.
* pt.c (tsubst_expr): Likewise.
* semantics.c (set_cleanup_locs): Likewise.
---
gcc/tree-iterator.h | 28 +++-
gcc/cp/constexpr.c | 42
++
gcc/cp/coroutines.cc | 10 --
gcc/cp/module.cc | 5 ++---
gcc/cp/pt.c | 5 ++---
gcc/cp/semantics.c | 5 ++---
6 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/tree-iterator.h b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
index 076fff8644c..f57456bb473 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-iterator.h
+++ b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
+/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
-*- C++ -*-
Copyright (C) 2003-2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Contributed by Andrew MacLeod
@@ -32,6 +32,13 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
struct tree_stmt_iterator {
struct tree_statement_list_node *ptr;
tree container;
I assume the absence of ctors is intentional. If so, I suggest
to add a comment explaing why. Otherwise, I would provide one
(or as many as needed).
+
+ bool operator== (tree_stmt_iterator b) const
+ { return b.ptr == ptr && b.container == container; }
+ bool operator!= (tree_stmt_iterator b) const { return !(*this ==
b); }
+ tree_stmt_iterator ++ () { ptr = ptr->next; return
*this; }
+ tree_stmt_iterator () { ptr = ptr->prev; return
*this; }
I would suggest to add postincrement and postdecrement.
+ tree * () { return ptr->stmt; }
Given the pervasive lack of const-safety in GCC and the by-value
semantics of the iterator this probably isn't worth it but maybe
add a const overload. operator->
Re: [PATCH RFA] tree-iterator: C++11 range-for and tree_stmt_iterator
On 5/17/21 3:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 2:23 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 5/13/21 1:26 PM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
Ping.
On 5/1/21 12:29 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Like my recent patch to add ovl_range and lkp_range in the C++ front end,
this patch adds the tsi_range adaptor for using C++11 range-based
'for' with
a STATEMENT_LIST, e.g.
for (tree stmt : tsi_range (stmt_list)) { ... }
This also involves adding some operators to tree_stmt_iterator that are
needed for range-for iterators, and should also be useful in code that
uses
the iterators directly.
The patch updates the suitable loops in the C++ front end, but does not
touch any loops elsewhere in the compiler.
I like the modernization of the loops.
The only worry I have (and why I stopped looking at range-for) is that
this adds another style of looping over stmts without opening the
possibility to remove another or even unify all of them. That's because
range-for isn't powerful enough w/o jumping through hoops and/or
we cannot use what appearantly ranges<> was intended for (fix
this limitation).
The range-for enabled by my patch simplifies the common case of simple
iteration over elements; that seems worth doing to me even if it doesn't
replace all loops. Just as FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT isn't suitable for all
loops over a vector.
That said, if some C++ literate could see if for example
what gimple-iterator.h provides can be completely modernized
then that would be great of course.
There's stuff like reverse iteration
This is typically done with the reverse_iterator<> adaptor, which we
could get from or duplicate. I didn't see enough reverse
iterations to make it seem worth the bother.
iteration skipping debug stmts,
There you can move the condition into the loop:
if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_DEBUG)
continue;
compares of iterators like gsi_one_before_end_p, etc.
Certainly anything where you want to mess with the iterators directly
doesn't really translate to range-for.
Given my failed tries (but I'm a C++ illiterate) my TODO list now
only contains turning the iterators into STL style ones, thus
gsi_stmt (it) -> *it, gsi_next () -> ++it, etc. - but even
it != end_p looks a bit awkward there.
Well, it < end_val is pretty typical for loops involving integer
iterators. But you don't have to use that style if you'd rather not.
You could continue to use gsi_end_p, or just *it, since we know that *it
is NULL at the end of the sequence.
I can't find anything terribly wrong with the iterator but let me
at least pick on some nits ;)
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-iterator.h (struct tree_stmt_iterator): Add operator++,
operator--, operator*, operator==, and operator!=.
(class tsi_range): New.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.c (build_data_member_initialization): Use tsi_range.
(build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers): Likewise.
(constexpr_fn_retval, cxx_eval_statement_list): Likewise.
(potential_constant_expression_1): Likewise.
* coroutines.cc (await_statement_expander): Likewise.
(await_statement_walker): Likewise.
* module.cc (trees_out::core_vals): Likewise.
* pt.c (tsubst_expr): Likewise.
* semantics.c (set_cleanup_locs): Likewise.
---
gcc/tree-iterator.h | 28 +++-
gcc/cp/constexpr.c | 42 ++
gcc/cp/coroutines.cc | 10 --
gcc/cp/module.cc | 5 ++---
gcc/cp/pt.c | 5 ++---
gcc/cp/semantics.c | 5 ++---
6 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/tree-iterator.h b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
index 076fff8644c..f57456bb473 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-iterator.h
+++ b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
+/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
-*- C++ -*-
Copyright (C) 2003-2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Contributed by Andrew MacLeod
@@ -32,6 +32,13 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
struct tree_stmt_iterator {
struct tree_statement_list_node *ptr;
tree container;
I assume the absence of ctors is intentional. If so, I suggest
to add a comment explaing why. Otherwise, I would provide one
(or as many as needed).
+
+ bool operator== (tree_stmt_iterator b) const
+{ return b.ptr == ptr && b.container == container; }
+ bool operator!= (tree_stmt_iterator b) const { return !(*this == b); }
+ tree_stmt_iterator ++ () { ptr = ptr->next; return *this; }
+ tree_stmt_iterator () { ptr = ptr->prev; return *this; }
I would suggest to add postincrement and postdecrement.
+ tree * () { return ptr->stmt; }
Given the pervasive lack of const-safety in GCC and the by-value
semantics of the iterator this probably isn't worth it but maybe
add a const overload. operator-> would probably never be used.
};
static inline
Re: [PATCH RFA] tree-iterator: C++11 range-for and tree_stmt_iterator
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 2:23 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On 5/13/21 1:26 PM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Ping.
> >
> > On 5/1/21 12:29 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> Like my recent patch to add ovl_range and lkp_range in the C++ front end,
> >> this patch adds the tsi_range adaptor for using C++11 range-based
> >> 'for' with
> >> a STATEMENT_LIST, e.g.
> >>
> >>for (tree stmt : tsi_range (stmt_list)) { ... }
> >>
> >> This also involves adding some operators to tree_stmt_iterator that are
> >> needed for range-for iterators, and should also be useful in code that
> >> uses
> >> the iterators directly.
> >>
> >> The patch updates the suitable loops in the C++ front end, but does not
> >> touch any loops elsewhere in the compiler.
>
> I like the modernization of the loops.
The only worry I have (and why I stopped looking at range-for) is that
this adds another style of looping over stmts without opening the
possibility to remove another or even unify all of them. That's because
range-for isn't powerful enough w/o jumping through hoops and/or
we cannot use what appearantly ranges<> was intended for (fix
this limitation).
That said, if some C++ literate could see if for example
what gimple-iterator.h provides can be completely modernized
then that would be great of course.
There's stuff like reverse iteration, iteration skipping debug stmts,
compares of iterators like gsi_one_before_end_p, etc.
Given my failed tries (but I'm a C++ illiterate) my TODO list now
only contains turning the iterators into STL style ones, thus
gsi_stmt (it) -> *it, gsi_next () -> ++it, etc. - but even
it != end_p looks a bit awkward there.
Richard.
> I can't find anything terribly wrong with the iterator but let me
> at least pick on some nits ;)
>
> >>
> >> gcc/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> * tree-iterator.h (struct tree_stmt_iterator): Add operator++,
> >> operator--, operator*, operator==, and operator!=.
> >> (class tsi_range): New.
> >>
> >> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> * constexpr.c (build_data_member_initialization): Use tsi_range.
> >> (build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers): Likewise.
> >> (constexpr_fn_retval, cxx_eval_statement_list): Likewise.
> >> (potential_constant_expression_1): Likewise.
> >> * coroutines.cc (await_statement_expander): Likewise.
> >> (await_statement_walker): Likewise.
> >> * module.cc (trees_out::core_vals): Likewise.
> >> * pt.c (tsubst_expr): Likewise.
> >> * semantics.c (set_cleanup_locs): Likewise.
> >> ---
> >> gcc/tree-iterator.h | 28 +++-
> >> gcc/cp/constexpr.c | 42 ++
> >> gcc/cp/coroutines.cc | 10 --
> >> gcc/cp/module.cc | 5 ++---
> >> gcc/cp/pt.c | 5 ++---
> >> gcc/cp/semantics.c | 5 ++---
> >> 6 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/gcc/tree-iterator.h b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
> >> index 076fff8644c..f57456bb473 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/tree-iterator.h
> >> +++ b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
> >> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> >> -/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
> >> +/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
> >> -*- C++ -*-
> >> Copyright (C) 2003-2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> >> Contributed by Andrew MacLeod
> >> @@ -32,6 +32,13 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
> >> struct tree_stmt_iterator {
> >> struct tree_statement_list_node *ptr;
> >> tree container;
>
> I assume the absence of ctors is intentional. If so, I suggest
> to add a comment explaing why. Otherwise, I would provide one
> (or as many as needed).
>
> >> +
> >> + bool operator== (tree_stmt_iterator b) const
> >> +{ return b.ptr == ptr && b.container == container; }
> >> + bool operator!= (tree_stmt_iterator b) const { return !(*this == b); }
> >> + tree_stmt_iterator ++ () { ptr = ptr->next; return *this; }
> >> + tree_stmt_iterator () { ptr = ptr->prev; return *this; }
>
> I would suggest to add postincrement and postdecrement.
>
> >> + tree * () { return ptr->stmt; }
>
> Given the pervasive lack of const-safety in GCC and the by-value
> semantics of the iterator this probably isn't worth it but maybe
> add a const overload. operator-> would probably never be used.
>
> >> };
> >> static inline tree_stmt_iterator
> >> @@ -71,27 +78,38 @@ tsi_one_before_end_p (tree_stmt_iterator i)
> >> static inline void
> >> tsi_next (tree_stmt_iterator *i)
> >> {
> >> - i->ptr = i->ptr->next;
> >> + ++(*i);
> >> }
> >> static inline void
> >> tsi_prev (tree_stmt_iterator *i)
> >> {
> >> - i->ptr = i->ptr->prev;
> >> + --(*i);
> >> }
> >> static inline tree *
> >> tsi_stmt_ptr (tree_stmt_iterator i)
> >> {
> >> - return >stmt;
> >> + return &(*i);
> >> }
> >> static inline tree
> >> tsi_stmt (tree_stmt_iterator i)
> >> {
> >> - return i.ptr->stmt;
> >> + return *i;
> >> }
>
Re: [PATCH RFA] tree-iterator: C++11 range-for and tree_stmt_iterator
On 5/13/21 7:21 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 5/13/21 1:26 PM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
Ping.
On 5/1/21 12:29 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Like my recent patch to add ovl_range and lkp_range in the C++ front
end,
this patch adds the tsi_range adaptor for using C++11 range-based
'for' with
a STATEMENT_LIST, e.g.
for (tree stmt : tsi_range (stmt_list)) { ... }
This also involves adding some operators to tree_stmt_iterator that are
needed for range-for iterators, and should also be useful in code
that uses
the iterators directly.
The patch updates the suitable loops in the C++ front end, but does not
touch any loops elsewhere in the compiler.
I like the modernization of the loops.
I can't find anything terribly wrong with the iterator but let me
at least pick on some nits ;)
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-iterator.h (struct tree_stmt_iterator): Add operator++,
operator--, operator*, operator==, and operator!=.
(class tsi_range): New.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.c (build_data_member_initialization): Use tsi_range.
(build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers): Likewise.
(constexpr_fn_retval, cxx_eval_statement_list): Likewise.
(potential_constant_expression_1): Likewise.
* coroutines.cc (await_statement_expander): Likewise.
(await_statement_walker): Likewise.
* module.cc (trees_out::core_vals): Likewise.
* pt.c (tsubst_expr): Likewise.
* semantics.c (set_cleanup_locs): Likewise.
---
gcc/tree-iterator.h | 28 +++-
gcc/cp/constexpr.c | 42 ++
gcc/cp/coroutines.cc | 10 --
gcc/cp/module.cc | 5 ++---
gcc/cp/pt.c | 5 ++---
gcc/cp/semantics.c | 5 ++---
6 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/tree-iterator.h b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
index 076fff8644c..f57456bb473 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-iterator.h
+++ b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
+/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
-*- C++ -*-
Copyright (C) 2003-2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Contributed by Andrew MacLeod
@@ -32,6 +32,13 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
struct tree_stmt_iterator {
struct tree_statement_list_node *ptr;
tree container;
I assume the absence of ctors is intentional. If so, I suggest
to add a comment explaing why. Otherwise, I would provide one
(or as many as needed).
+
+ bool operator== (tree_stmt_iterator b) const
+ { return b.ptr == ptr && b.container == container; }
+ bool operator!= (tree_stmt_iterator b) const { return !(*this ==
b); }
+ tree_stmt_iterator ++ () { ptr = ptr->next; return *this; }
+ tree_stmt_iterator () { ptr = ptr->prev; return *this; }
I would suggest to add postincrement and postdecrement.
+ tree * () { return ptr->stmt; }
Given the pervasive lack of const-safety in GCC and the by-value
semantics of the iterator this probably isn't worth it but maybe
add a const overload. operator-> would probably never be used.
};
static inline tree_stmt_iterator
@@ -71,27 +78,38 @@ tsi_one_before_end_p (tree_stmt_iterator i)
static inline void
tsi_next (tree_stmt_iterator *i)
{
- i->ptr = i->ptr->next;
+ ++(*i);
}
static inline void
tsi_prev (tree_stmt_iterator *i)
{
- i->ptr = i->ptr->prev;
+ --(*i);
}
static inline tree *
tsi_stmt_ptr (tree_stmt_iterator i)
{
- return >stmt;
+ return &(*i);
}
static inline tree
tsi_stmt (tree_stmt_iterator i)
{
- return i.ptr->stmt;
+ return *i;
}
+/* Make tree_stmt_iterator work as a C++ range, e.g.
+ for (tree stmt : tsi_range (stmt_list)) { ... } */
+class tsi_range
+{
+ tree t;
+ public:
+ tsi_range (tree t): t(t) { }
+ tree_stmt_iterator begin() { return tsi_start (t); }
+ tree_stmt_iterator end() { return { nullptr, t }; }
Those member functions could be made const.
Sure:
+};
+
enum tsi_iterator_update
{
TSI_NEW_STMT, /* Only valid when single statement is
added, move
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
index 9481a5bfd3c..260b0122f59 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -330,12 +330,9 @@ build_data_member_initialization (tree t,
vec **vec)
return false;
if (TREE_CODE (t) == STATEMENT_LIST)
{
- tree_stmt_iterator i;
- for (i = tsi_start (t); !tsi_end_p (i); tsi_next ())
- {
- if (! build_data_member_initialization (tsi_stmt (i), vec))
- return false;
- }
+ for (tree stmt : tsi_range (t))
+ if (! build_data_member_initialization (stmt, vec))
+ return false;
return true;
}
if (TREE_CODE (t) == CLEANUP_STMT)
@@ -577,10 +574,9 @@ build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers
(tree type, tree body)
break;
case STATEMENT_LIST:
- for (tree_stmt_iterator i = tsi_start (body);
- !tsi_end_p (i); tsi_next ())
+ for
Re: [PATCH RFA] tree-iterator: C++11 range-for and tree_stmt_iterator
On 5/13/21 1:26 PM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
Ping.
On 5/1/21 12:29 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Like my recent patch to add ovl_range and lkp_range in the C++ front end,
this patch adds the tsi_range adaptor for using C++11 range-based
'for' with
a STATEMENT_LIST, e.g.
for (tree stmt : tsi_range (stmt_list)) { ... }
This also involves adding some operators to tree_stmt_iterator that are
needed for range-for iterators, and should also be useful in code that
uses
the iterators directly.
The patch updates the suitable loops in the C++ front end, but does not
touch any loops elsewhere in the compiler.
I like the modernization of the loops.
I can't find anything terribly wrong with the iterator but let me
at least pick on some nits ;)
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-iterator.h (struct tree_stmt_iterator): Add operator++,
operator--, operator*, operator==, and operator!=.
(class tsi_range): New.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.c (build_data_member_initialization): Use tsi_range.
(build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers): Likewise.
(constexpr_fn_retval, cxx_eval_statement_list): Likewise.
(potential_constant_expression_1): Likewise.
* coroutines.cc (await_statement_expander): Likewise.
(await_statement_walker): Likewise.
* module.cc (trees_out::core_vals): Likewise.
* pt.c (tsubst_expr): Likewise.
* semantics.c (set_cleanup_locs): Likewise.
---
gcc/tree-iterator.h | 28 +++-
gcc/cp/constexpr.c | 42 ++
gcc/cp/coroutines.cc | 10 --
gcc/cp/module.cc | 5 ++---
gcc/cp/pt.c | 5 ++---
gcc/cp/semantics.c | 5 ++---
6 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/tree-iterator.h b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
index 076fff8644c..f57456bb473 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-iterator.h
+++ b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
+/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
-*- C++ -*-
Copyright (C) 2003-2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Contributed by Andrew MacLeod
@@ -32,6 +32,13 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
struct tree_stmt_iterator {
struct tree_statement_list_node *ptr;
tree container;
I assume the absence of ctors is intentional. If so, I suggest
to add a comment explaing why. Otherwise, I would provide one
(or as many as needed).
+
+ bool operator== (tree_stmt_iterator b) const
+ { return b.ptr == ptr && b.container == container; }
+ bool operator!= (tree_stmt_iterator b) const { return !(*this == b); }
+ tree_stmt_iterator ++ () { ptr = ptr->next; return *this; }
+ tree_stmt_iterator () { ptr = ptr->prev; return *this; }
I would suggest to add postincrement and postdecrement.
+ tree * () { return ptr->stmt; }
Given the pervasive lack of const-safety in GCC and the by-value
semantics of the iterator this probably isn't worth it but maybe
add a const overload. operator-> would probably never be used.
};
static inline tree_stmt_iterator
@@ -71,27 +78,38 @@ tsi_one_before_end_p (tree_stmt_iterator i)
static inline void
tsi_next (tree_stmt_iterator *i)
{
- i->ptr = i->ptr->next;
+ ++(*i);
}
static inline void
tsi_prev (tree_stmt_iterator *i)
{
- i->ptr = i->ptr->prev;
+ --(*i);
}
static inline tree *
tsi_stmt_ptr (tree_stmt_iterator i)
{
- return >stmt;
+ return &(*i);
}
static inline tree
tsi_stmt (tree_stmt_iterator i)
{
- return i.ptr->stmt;
+ return *i;
}
+/* Make tree_stmt_iterator work as a C++ range, e.g.
+ for (tree stmt : tsi_range (stmt_list)) { ... } */
+class tsi_range
+{
+ tree t;
+ public:
+ tsi_range (tree t): t(t) { }
+ tree_stmt_iterator begin() { return tsi_start (t); }
+ tree_stmt_iterator end() { return { nullptr, t }; }
Those member functions could be made const.
Martin
+};
+
enum tsi_iterator_update
{
TSI_NEW_STMT, /* Only valid when single statement is added,
move
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
index 9481a5bfd3c..260b0122f59 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -330,12 +330,9 @@ build_data_member_initialization (tree t,
vec **vec)
return false;
if (TREE_CODE (t) == STATEMENT_LIST)
{
- tree_stmt_iterator i;
- for (i = tsi_start (t); !tsi_end_p (i); tsi_next ())
- {
- if (! build_data_member_initialization (tsi_stmt (i), vec))
- return false;
- }
+ for (tree stmt : tsi_range (t))
+ if (! build_data_member_initialization (stmt, vec))
+ return false;
return true;
}
if (TREE_CODE (t) == CLEANUP_STMT)
@@ -577,10 +574,9 @@ build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers
(tree type, tree body)
break;
case STATEMENT_LIST:
- for (tree_stmt_iterator i = tsi_start (body);
- !tsi_end_p (i); tsi_next ())
+ for (tree stmt : tsi_range (body))
{
-
Re: [PATCH RFA] tree-iterator: C++11 range-for and tree_stmt_iterator
Ping.
On 5/1/21 12:29 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Like my recent patch to add ovl_range and lkp_range in the C++ front end,
this patch adds the tsi_range adaptor for using C++11 range-based 'for' with
a STATEMENT_LIST, e.g.
for (tree stmt : tsi_range (stmt_list)) { ... }
This also involves adding some operators to tree_stmt_iterator that are
needed for range-for iterators, and should also be useful in code that uses
the iterators directly.
The patch updates the suitable loops in the C++ front end, but does not
touch any loops elsewhere in the compiler.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-iterator.h (struct tree_stmt_iterator): Add operator++,
operator--, operator*, operator==, and operator!=.
(class tsi_range): New.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.c (build_data_member_initialization): Use tsi_range.
(build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers): Likewise.
(constexpr_fn_retval, cxx_eval_statement_list): Likewise.
(potential_constant_expression_1): Likewise.
* coroutines.cc (await_statement_expander): Likewise.
(await_statement_walker): Likewise.
* module.cc (trees_out::core_vals): Likewise.
* pt.c (tsubst_expr): Likewise.
* semantics.c (set_cleanup_locs): Likewise.
---
gcc/tree-iterator.h | 28 +++-
gcc/cp/constexpr.c | 42 ++
gcc/cp/coroutines.cc | 10 --
gcc/cp/module.cc | 5 ++---
gcc/cp/pt.c | 5 ++---
gcc/cp/semantics.c | 5 ++---
6 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/tree-iterator.h b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
index 076fff8644c..f57456bb473 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-iterator.h
+++ b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
+/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list. -*- C++ -*-
Copyright (C) 2003-2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Contributed by Andrew MacLeod
@@ -32,6 +32,13 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
struct tree_stmt_iterator {
struct tree_statement_list_node *ptr;
tree container;
+
+ bool operator== (tree_stmt_iterator b) const
+{ return b.ptr == ptr && b.container == container; }
+ bool operator!= (tree_stmt_iterator b) const { return !(*this == b); }
+ tree_stmt_iterator ++ () { ptr = ptr->next; return *this; }
+ tree_stmt_iterator () { ptr = ptr->prev; return *this; }
+ tree * () { return ptr->stmt; }
};
static inline tree_stmt_iterator
@@ -71,27 +78,38 @@ tsi_one_before_end_p (tree_stmt_iterator i)
static inline void
tsi_next (tree_stmt_iterator *i)
{
- i->ptr = i->ptr->next;
+ ++(*i);
}
static inline void
tsi_prev (tree_stmt_iterator *i)
{
- i->ptr = i->ptr->prev;
+ --(*i);
}
static inline tree *
tsi_stmt_ptr (tree_stmt_iterator i)
{
- return >stmt;
+ return &(*i);
}
static inline tree
tsi_stmt (tree_stmt_iterator i)
{
- return i.ptr->stmt;
+ return *i;
}
+/* Make tree_stmt_iterator work as a C++ range, e.g.
+ for (tree stmt : tsi_range (stmt_list)) { ... } */
+class tsi_range
+{
+ tree t;
+ public:
+ tsi_range (tree t): t(t) { }
+ tree_stmt_iterator begin() { return tsi_start (t); }
+ tree_stmt_iterator end() { return { nullptr, t }; }
+};
+
enum tsi_iterator_update
{
TSI_NEW_STMT, /* Only valid when single statement is added,
move
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
index 9481a5bfd3c..260b0122f59 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -330,12 +330,9 @@ build_data_member_initialization (tree t,
vec **vec)
return false;
if (TREE_CODE (t) == STATEMENT_LIST)
{
- tree_stmt_iterator i;
- for (i = tsi_start (t); !tsi_end_p (i); tsi_next ())
- {
- if (! build_data_member_initialization (tsi_stmt (i), vec))
- return false;
- }
+ for (tree stmt : tsi_range (t))
+ if (! build_data_member_initialization (stmt, vec))
+ return false;
return true;
}
if (TREE_CODE (t) == CLEANUP_STMT)
@@ -577,10 +574,9 @@ build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers (tree
type, tree body)
break;
case STATEMENT_LIST:
- for (tree_stmt_iterator i = tsi_start (body);
-!tsi_end_p (i); tsi_next ())
+ for (tree stmt : tsi_range (body))
{
- body = tsi_stmt (i);
+ body = stmt;
if (TREE_CODE (body) == BIND_EXPR)
break;
}
@@ -617,10 +613,9 @@ build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers (tree
type, tree body)
}
else if (TREE_CODE (body) == STATEMENT_LIST)
{
- tree_stmt_iterator i;
- for (i = tsi_start (body); !tsi_end_p (i); tsi_next ())
+ for (tree stmt : tsi_range (body))
{
- ok = build_data_member_initialization (tsi_stmt (i), );
+ ok = build_data_member_initialization (stmt, );
[PATCH RFA] tree-iterator: C++11 range-for and tree_stmt_iterator
Like my recent patch to add ovl_range and lkp_range in the C++ front end,
this patch adds the tsi_range adaptor for using C++11 range-based 'for' with
a STATEMENT_LIST, e.g.
for (tree stmt : tsi_range (stmt_list)) { ... }
This also involves adding some operators to tree_stmt_iterator that are
needed for range-for iterators, and should also be useful in code that uses
the iterators directly.
The patch updates the suitable loops in the C++ front end, but does not
touch any loops elsewhere in the compiler.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-iterator.h (struct tree_stmt_iterator): Add operator++,
operator--, operator*, operator==, and operator!=.
(class tsi_range): New.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.c (build_data_member_initialization): Use tsi_range.
(build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers): Likewise.
(constexpr_fn_retval, cxx_eval_statement_list): Likewise.
(potential_constant_expression_1): Likewise.
* coroutines.cc (await_statement_expander): Likewise.
(await_statement_walker): Likewise.
* module.cc (trees_out::core_vals): Likewise.
* pt.c (tsubst_expr): Likewise.
* semantics.c (set_cleanup_locs): Likewise.
---
gcc/tree-iterator.h | 28 +++-
gcc/cp/constexpr.c | 42 ++
gcc/cp/coroutines.cc | 10 --
gcc/cp/module.cc | 5 ++---
gcc/cp/pt.c | 5 ++---
gcc/cp/semantics.c | 5 ++---
6 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/tree-iterator.h b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
index 076fff8644c..f57456bb473 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-iterator.h
+++ b/gcc/tree-iterator.h
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list.
+/* Iterator routines for manipulating GENERIC tree statement list. -*- C++ -*-
Copyright (C) 2003-2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Contributed by Andrew MacLeod
@@ -32,6 +32,13 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
struct tree_stmt_iterator {
struct tree_statement_list_node *ptr;
tree container;
+
+ bool operator== (tree_stmt_iterator b) const
+{ return b.ptr == ptr && b.container == container; }
+ bool operator!= (tree_stmt_iterator b) const { return !(*this == b); }
+ tree_stmt_iterator ++ () { ptr = ptr->next; return *this; }
+ tree_stmt_iterator () { ptr = ptr->prev; return *this; }
+ tree * () { return ptr->stmt; }
};
static inline tree_stmt_iterator
@@ -71,27 +78,38 @@ tsi_one_before_end_p (tree_stmt_iterator i)
static inline void
tsi_next (tree_stmt_iterator *i)
{
- i->ptr = i->ptr->next;
+ ++(*i);
}
static inline void
tsi_prev (tree_stmt_iterator *i)
{
- i->ptr = i->ptr->prev;
+ --(*i);
}
static inline tree *
tsi_stmt_ptr (tree_stmt_iterator i)
{
- return >stmt;
+ return &(*i);
}
static inline tree
tsi_stmt (tree_stmt_iterator i)
{
- return i.ptr->stmt;
+ return *i;
}
+/* Make tree_stmt_iterator work as a C++ range, e.g.
+ for (tree stmt : tsi_range (stmt_list)) { ... } */
+class tsi_range
+{
+ tree t;
+ public:
+ tsi_range (tree t): t(t) { }
+ tree_stmt_iterator begin() { return tsi_start (t); }
+ tree_stmt_iterator end() { return { nullptr, t }; }
+};
+
enum tsi_iterator_update
{
TSI_NEW_STMT,/* Only valid when single statement is added,
move
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
index 9481a5bfd3c..260b0122f59 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -330,12 +330,9 @@ build_data_member_initialization (tree t,
vec **vec)
return false;
if (TREE_CODE (t) == STATEMENT_LIST)
{
- tree_stmt_iterator i;
- for (i = tsi_start (t); !tsi_end_p (i); tsi_next ())
- {
- if (! build_data_member_initialization (tsi_stmt (i), vec))
- return false;
- }
+ for (tree stmt : tsi_range (t))
+ if (! build_data_member_initialization (stmt, vec))
+ return false;
return true;
}
if (TREE_CODE (t) == CLEANUP_STMT)
@@ -577,10 +574,9 @@ build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers (tree
type, tree body)
break;
case STATEMENT_LIST:
- for (tree_stmt_iterator i = tsi_start (body);
-!tsi_end_p (i); tsi_next ())
+ for (tree stmt : tsi_range (body))
{
- body = tsi_stmt (i);
+ body = stmt;
if (TREE_CODE (body) == BIND_EXPR)
break;
}
@@ -617,10 +613,9 @@ build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers (tree
type, tree body)
}
else if (TREE_CODE (body) == STATEMENT_LIST)
{
- tree_stmt_iterator i;
- for (i = tsi_start (body); !tsi_end_p (i); tsi_next ())
+ for (tree stmt : tsi_range (body))
{
- ok = build_data_member_initialization (tsi_stmt (i), );
+ ok = build_data_member_initialization (stmt, );
if (!ok)
break;
}
@@ -675,11 +670,10 @@ constexpr_fn_retval (tree body)
