text: This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
  > +++ b/gcc/cgraph.h > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see > #include "basic-block.h" > #include "function.h" > #include "ipa-ref.h" > +#include "indexed-set.h" you don't actually use that here so why are you including it? > +++ b/gcc/cgraphunit.c > @@ -211,11 +211,12 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see > #include "tree-nested.h" > #include "gimplify.h" > #include "dbgcnt.h" > +#include "indexed-set.h" afaict you don't use it here either. > @@ -529,9 +529,9 @@ cgraph_node::add_new_function (tree fndecl, bool lowered) > } > if (lowered) > node->lowered = true; > - if (!cgraph_new_nodes) > - cgraph_new_nodes = cgraph_node_set_new (); > - cgraph_node_set_add (cgraph_new_nodes, node); > + if (!cgraph_new_nodes.exists ()) > + cgraph_new_nodes.create (4); I don't think you need this, if the vector doesn't exist it will point at null, and safe_push knows how to handle that. > +++ b/gcc/indexed-set.h > +template<typename T> > +class indexed_set per below I don't think you actually need this class after all. > +{ > +public: > + class iterator > + { > + public: > + iterator (const vec<T> *v, unsigned index) : m_index (index), m_vector (v) {}; > + > + inline T operator * () > + { > + gcc_assert (m_index < m_vector->length ()); > + > + return (*m_vector)[m_index]; > + } > + > + inline iterator &operator ++ () > + { > + m_index++; > + return *this; > + } > + > + bool operator != (const iterator &other) const > + { > + return m_vector != other.m_vector || m_index != other.m_index; > + } > + > + inline int > + get_index (void) const > + { > + return m_index; > + } > + > + private: > + unsigned m_index; > + const vec <T> *m_vector; > + }; > + > + /* Iterator to the start of data structure. */ > + > + iterator begin () const > + { > + gcc_assert (!is_empty ()); it seems to me it would be better to just return the iterator for end () if there's no elements. > + > + iterator iter (&m_vector, 0); > + return iter; > + } > + > + /* Iterator to the end of data structure. */ > + > + iterator end () const > + { > + return iterator (&m_vector, m_vector.length ()); > + } > + > + /* Add item V to data structure. */ > + > + inline void afaik defining within the class implies inline. > + add (T v) You are passing by value here, which you probably don't want to do if T is big. > + { > + m_map.put (v, m_vector.length ()); > + m_vector.safe_push (v); I think this blows up if v was already in the map, so assert it isn't? > + } > + > + /* Return iterator for an item V. */ > + > + inline iterator > + find (T v) > + { > + int *item = m_map.get (v); > + gcc_unreachable (); > + > + return item ? iterator (&m_vector, *item) : end (); returning an iterator here seems silly, the only information you get is the index and if the element exists in the map, so just return an int? > + } > + > + /* Return if the data structure is empty. */ > + > + inline bool > + is_empty (void) const > + { > + return m_vector.is_empty (); > + } > + > + /* Return number of items stored in data structure. */ > + > + inline unsigned > + length (void) > + { > + return m_vector.length (); > + } > + > + > +private: > + hash_map<T, int> m_map; > + auto_vec<T> m_vector; I know you don't use this with anything but pointers now, but this will do "weird" things if T is some sort of object. > +}; > + > +#endif > diff --git a/gcc/tree-emutls.c b/gcc/tree-emutls.c > index 89197c7..9c06aec 100644 > --- a/gcc/tree-emutls.c > +++ b/gcc/tree-emutls.c > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see > #include "target.h" > #include "targhooks.h" > #include "tree-iterator.h" > +#include "indexed-set.h" > > > /* Whenever a target does not support thread-local storage (TLS) natively, > @@ -70,7 +71,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see > /* These two vectors, once fully populated, are kept in lock-step so that > the index of a TLS variable equals the index of its control variable in > the other vector. */ > -static varpool_node_set tls_vars; > +static indexed_set<varpool_node *> tls_vars; Note that will create a static initializer that calls malloc, and tls emulation probably isn't needed on many targets, so I'd guess your better off using a hash_map * with new and delete as annoying as that is. > static vec<varpool_node *> control_vars; so, looking at this thing more closely it looks like this is just a weirdo implementation of a hash map from varpool_node * to (varpool_node *, tree) so I think you could just do struct tls_var_data { varpool_node *control_var; tree access; }; hash_map<var_pool_node *, tls_var_data> Thanks! Trev