This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: TREE_LIST, a new hope -- from oldlto branch

From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
Cc: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, kazu at codesourcery dot com, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 14:20:56 +0200
Subject: Re: TREE_LIST, a new hope -- from oldlto branch
References: <p2r571f6b511005031250h57518303qb650e36f28f15f06@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1005041407540.1097@wotan.suse.de>

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 3 May 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>> ? ? ? * gcc/stor-layout.c (pending_sizes): Change the type to
>> ? ? ? VEC(tree,gc) *.
>
> If we're doing such cleanups (and I think they're nice), can we at the
> same time introduce nicer syntax for commonly used vectors? ?I really hate
> reading these "VEC(bla)" things, they are so non-C. ?For instance the
> "VEC(tree,gc)*" type could be named "treegv" (and the heap variant
> treehv). ?The accessor functions could then be treegv_iterate, and
> treegv_safe_push and so on.

Ick.

Please no ;)

Thanks,
Richard.

References:
- TREE_LIST, a new hope -- from oldlto branch
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: TREE_LIST, a new hope -- from oldlto branch
  - From: Michael Matz

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]