search for: checksomething

...great, as it both adds unrelated stuff to the code, but also makes it harder to conditionally disable the error reporting. On the other side, I believe it is good to make the 'return false' explicit. Hence, I propose to transform the code in something like the following: Instead of if (checkSomething()) INVALID(AffFunc, "Test" << SCEV <<); we should get something like: if (checkSomething()) { reportInvalidAffFunc(SCEV); return false; } The reportInvalidAffFunc is then either a NO-OP (during normal execution) or it reports the error (in case we need it)....

...ff to the code, but >also makes it harder to conditionally disable the error reporting. On >the other side, I believe it is good to make the 'return false' >explicit. > >Hence, I propose to transform the code in something like the following: > >Instead of > > if (checkSomething()) > INVALID(AffFunc, "Test" << SCEV <<); > >we should get something like: > > if (checkSomething()) { > reportInvalidAffFunc(SCEV); > return false; > } > >The reportInvalidAffFunc is then either a NO-OP (during normal >execution) or...

Hi all, I have attached a patch file to reduce the polly-detect overhead. My idea is to avoid calling TypeFinder in Non-DEBUG mode, so TypeFinder is only called in DEBUG mode with the DEBUG macro. This patch file did this work with following modifications: First, it keeps most of string information by replacing "<<" with "+" operation. For example, code like this:

On 07/14/2013 08:05 AM, Star Tan wrote: > I have found that the extremely expensive compile-time overhead comes from the string buffer operation for "INVALID" MACRO in the polly-detect pass. > Attached is a hack patch file that simply remove the string buffer operation. This patch file can significantly reduce compile-time overhead when compiling big source code. For example, for

...fully sure how the reportInvalid* functions should look >> like. However, the part of your patch that is easy to commit without >> further discussion is to move the 'return false' out of the INVALID >> macro. Meaning, translating the above code to: >> >> if (checkSomething()) { >> INVALID(AffFunc, "Test" << SCEV <<); >> return false; >> } >> >> I propose to submit such a patch first and then focus on the remaining >> problems. > Yes, I agree with you. I have attached a patch file to move "re...

...reportInvalid* functions should look >>> like. However, the part of your patch that is easy to commit without >>> further discussion is to move the 'return false' out of the INVALID >>> macro. Meaning, translating the above code to: >>> >>> if (checkSomething()) { >>> INVALID(AffFunc, "Test" << SCEV <<); >>> return false; >>> } >>> >>> I propose to submit such a patch first and then focus on the remaining >>> problems. >> Yes, I agree with you. I have attached a...