[m-rev.] for post-commit review: simplify management of smart indexing

[Zoltan Somogyi]

2023-04-03 12:15 GMT+10:00 "Julien Fischer" <jfischer at opturion.com>:
>> This diff was tickled by a reference to switch_gen.m in a post
>> on reddit.com/r/Compilers, of all things.
> 
> That doesn't seem an entirely unreasonable for it to be referred to.

Not unreasonable, but unusual.

>> Next, I plan to simplify the logic of ml_gen_smart_string_switch,
>> whose complexity may have been needed when we had IL
>> and gcc asm as targets, but isn't needed now. Unless someone objects,
>> this simplification will include the deletion of the test for "does this
>> MLDS target support switches on ints?", since the only target for which
>> this was "no" was IL, and I don't expect we will directly target
>> any language that low level ever again. (The smart way to go
>> when targeting a *normal* assembler would be to generate
>> the same MLDS as we would for C, and then *compiling* that MLDS
>> into assembler, instead of emitting it as C.)
> 
> No objections from me.

Will do.
 
>> +    ;       int_64_switch
>> +            % A switch on a int64 or uint64.
>> +            % These require special treatment on the Java backend.
> 
> I suggest:
> 
>      These require special treatment on the Java backend because Java
>      does not support switches on longs.

Done. Thanks for the review.

Zoltan.