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: Fix PR17656

From: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:48:25 -0700
Subject: Re: Fix PR17656
References: <1098121036.7048.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <BF4607F8-212C-11D9-B4B8-000A95D692F4@physics.uc.edu> <1098121374.7048.58.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Oct 18, 2004, at 10:42 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:

On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 13:40, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Should you be using stmt_for_bsi instead which does the same thing
as the for loop?

I see that, yes, this really did get committed as stmt_for_bsi instead of bsi_for_stmt. Does anybody mind if I change it? The latter name follows the same naming convention as everything else.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fix PR17656
  - From: Diego Novillo

References:
- Fix PR17656
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: Fix PR17656
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: Fix PR17656
  - From: Diego Novillo

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