This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH]: Remove var_ann->uid
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: dberlin at dberlin dot org
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:23:29 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Remove var_ann->uid
- References: <1120055022.7622.51.camel@dyn9002219098>
> 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?