[PATCH] no needs to use MARK_CURRENT_DELETED() for multi-jumps

[PATCH] no needs to use MARK_CURRENT_DELETED() for multi-jumps

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

MARK_CURRENT_DELETED() was added for the case(s) where an element
must be removed from the list but the address of the other elements
must not be changed. In this case of effectively removing the
element from it list, the element is 'marked' as deleted in the list
and the list walking macros will later take this in account.

However, this is not never needed for multi-jumps.

So, use the usual DELETE_CURRENT_PTR() for them.

Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
---
 simplify.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/simplify.c b/simplify.c
index 9e3514d838a9..30d053f708e3 100644
--- a/simplify.c
+++ b/simplify.c
@@ -2651,7 +2651,7 @@ static int simplify_cgoto(struct instruction *insn)
 				continue;
 			remove_bb_from_list(&jmp->target->parents, bb, 1);
 			remove_bb_from_list(&bb->children, jmp->target, 1);
-			MARK_CURRENT_DELETED(jmp);
+			DELETE_CURRENT_PTR(jmp);
 		} END_FOR_EACH_PTR(jmp);
 		kill_use(&insn->src);
 		insn->opcode = OP_BR;
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH] no needs to use MARK_CURRENT_DELETED() for multi-jumps

[Ramsay Jones]

On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 03:31:54PM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> MARK_CURRENT_DELETED() was added for the case(s) where an element
> must be removed from the list but the address of the other elements
> must not be changed. In this case of effectively removing the
> element from it list, the element is 'marked' as deleted in the list
> and the list walking macros will later take this in account.
> 
> However, this is not never needed for multi-jumps.

s/not never/not ever/ ?

ATB,
Ramsay Jones

> 
> So, use the usual DELETE_CURRENT_PTR() for them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
> ---
>  simplify.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/simplify.c b/simplify.c
> index 9e3514d838a9..30d053f708e3 100644
> --- a/simplify.c
> +++ b/simplify.c
> @@ -2651,7 +2651,7 @@ static int simplify_cgoto(struct instruction *insn)
>  				continue;
>  			remove_bb_from_list(&jmp->target->parents, bb, 1);
>  			remove_bb_from_list(&bb->children, jmp->target, 1);
> -			MARK_CURRENT_DELETED(jmp);
> +			DELETE_CURRENT_PTR(jmp);
>  		} END_FOR_EACH_PTR(jmp);
>  		kill_use(&insn->src);
>  		insn->opcode = OP_BR;
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

Re: [PATCH] no needs to use MARK_CURRENT_DELETED() for multi-jumps

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 05:18:31PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 03:31:54PM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> > MARK_CURRENT_DELETED() was added for the case(s) where an element
> > must be removed from the list but the address of the other elements
> > must not be changed. In this case of effectively removing the
> > element from it list, the element is 'marked' as deleted in the list
> > and the list walking macros will later take this in account.
> > 
> > However, this is not never needed for multi-jumps.
> 
> s/not never/not ever/ ?

Hehe :) Thanks.
Just 's/not never/never/'

-- Luc

Re: [PATCH] no needs to use MARK_CURRENT_DELETED() for multi-jumps

[Ramsay Jones]

On 17/04/2021 17:38, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 05:18:31PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 03:31:54PM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
>>> MARK_CURRENT_DELETED() was added for the case(s) where an element
>>> must be removed from the list but the address of the other elements
>>> must not be changed. In this case of effectively removing the
>>> element from it list, the element is 'marked' as deleted in the list
>>> and the list walking macros will later take this in account.
>>>
>>> However, this is not never needed for multi-jumps.
>>
>> s/not never/not ever/ ?
> 
> Hehe :) Thanks.
> Just 's/not never/never/'

Heh, palmface, of course! ;-)

ATB,
Ramsay Jones