Re: [PATCH]: Add new bytecode op `switch' for implementing branch tables.

[Vibhav Pant]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 02/10/2017 10:25 AM, Vibhav Pant wrote:
>>
>> Are there any other issues before I merge this into master?
>
>
> For the C code, please use the usual style: space before paren in calls, GNU
> style indenting for curly braces, "/* " at start of comments, main operator
> like "||" at start of next line rather than at end of previous line.
>
> One of the 'if's is overparenthesized, i.e., "if ((E))" where E is an
> ordinary expression and "if (E)" will do.
>
> Prefer "if (BYTE_CODE_SAFE)" to "#ifdef BYTE_CODE_SAFE", as these days it's
> better to avoid the preprocessor when it's easy.
>
> This comment:
>
>                     /* Hash tables for switch are declared with :size set to
> the
>                        exact number of cases, thus
>                        HASH_TABLE_SIZE (h) == h->count.  */
>
> is something that could be checked, no? Perhaps replace the comment with "if
> (BYTE_CODE_SAFE) eassert (HASH_TABLE_SIZE (h) == h->count);" and do the
> latter even with large hash tables?
Done.
>
> If you change the loop from "for (i = 0; i < h->count; i++)" to "for (i =
> h->count; 0 <= --i; )", then you can merge the two copies of "op = XINT
> (HASH_VALUE (h, i)); goto ob_branch;" into one copy that is after the
> surrounding "if".
>

Done, thanks.


-- 
Vibhav Pant
address@hidden