This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Possible change to gen* for splits
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Subject: Re: Possible change to gen* for splits
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:13:24 -0800
- Cc: cpopetz at cygnus dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <10003161643.AA29057@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 11:34:21AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Actually, since I can do lookahead, how about:
>
> "condition"
>
> "&& reload_completed"
>
> I guess that works since it would be meaningless were there not a
> previous condition, but it seems sort of "odd" to me, though I can't say
> exactly why.
I quite like it.
> My concern is in picking a syntax where it's obvious the
> is some relation between the two conditions to somebody who might not
> have carefully poured through all the documentation.
Exactly. Which is why I like a leading && so much. Pick
any other marker and it's going to be meaningless unless
you've read all the documentation. Use && and you're at
least using the right C operator to describe what happens.
r~