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: [PATCH]: Remove var_ann->uid


> I put the iterators in tree-flow-inline.h because they need to be static
> inline for performance reasons, and i'm not sure about using static
> inline's in libiberty.

So far we've been against them.  It exposes too much of libiberty's
internals, which interferes with our ability to change them.  When we
do decide to use them, it's usually a #define macro, not a "static
inline" function, because we can't guarantee that everyone's configure
will provide the right details we need to get the syntax right all the
time.

> Okay for mainline and libiberty?

Libiberty bits are OK, with these caveats...

>  typedef void *(*htab_alloc_with_arg) (void *, size_t, size_t);
>  typedef void (*htab_free_with_arg) (void *, void *);
> +/* This macro defines reserved value for empty table entry. */
> +

Should have a blank line before that comment.  Also, two spaces after
the period.

> @@ -190,6 +198,9 @@ extern hashval_t iterative_hash (const v
>  /* Shorthand for hashing something with an intrinsic size.  */
>  #define iterative_hash_object(OB,INIT) iterative_hash (&OB, sizeof (OB), INIT)
>  
> +
> +
> +
>  #ifdef __cplusplus
>  }

What are these new blank likes for for?


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