Re: [PATCH] Fix PR56466

2013-02-28 Thread Marek Polacek
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 02:32:02PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > Marek Polacek writes: > > + bool changed = false; > > + changed |= true; > > + changed |= true; > > + changed |= true; > > + changed |= true; > > +if (changed) > > Why do you use "|=" ...? Isn't it equivalent to

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR56466

2013-02-27 Thread Miles Bader
Marek Polacek writes: > + bool changed = false; > + changed |= true; > + changed |= true; > + changed |= true; > + changed |= true; > +if (changed) Why do you use "|=" ...? Isn't it equivalent to just "=" (which is more clear) for a boolean? Thanks, -miles -- 永日の

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR56466

2013-02-27 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Marek Polacek wrote: > This patch does two things: it fixes PR56466 by calling fix_loop_structure > in case we're changing a loop, and secondly, it makes verifiyng > loops in the unroller cheaper: there's no need to verify each loop, > we can do it once after all transformatio

[PATCH] Fix PR56466

2013-02-27 Thread Marek Polacek
This patch does two things: it fixes PR56466 by calling fix_loop_structure in case we're changing a loop, and secondly, it makes verifiyng loops in the unroller cheaper: there's no need to verify each loop, we can do it once after all transformations (verify_loop_structure is being called via fix_l