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: misc VRP cleanups for value_range API

From: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 09:33:54 -0500
Subject: Re: misc VRP cleanups for value_range API
References: <04208e74-4e3b-15b0-91f0-d8f90372d26a@redhat.com> <CAFiYyc2ByNKL=iFR3bLWGO5MTFrugLW0bB2qOaPaP5UtN3wTGA@mail.gmail.com>



On 11/8/18 9:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote:

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:42 PM Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:


Stupid boring changes.

OK?


Well, IMHO using m_min is making clear you are accessing a member
while using min () does not.

There is already prior art here. I believe I discussed this before andcommitted some bits like this.


So no, please do not make this kind of changes?

It also makes it easier for my work going forward. So not technicallyneeded, but it would make my life easier as I change the min/maximplementation in the distant future. Please?


Aldy

Follow-Ups:
- Re: misc VRP cleanups for value_range API
  - From: Richard Biener

References:
- misc VRP cleanups for value_range API
  - From: Aldy Hernandez
- Re: misc VRP cleanups for value_range API
  - From: Richard Biener

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