This is the mail archive of the 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: IPA merge part 1: localize SSA variables

Jan Hubicka wrote on 11/15/06 15:59:
Jan Hubicka wrote on 11/15/06 15:49:

OK, I will use gimple_df then (or some shorter variant?).  What about
the ancestor macros/functions problem?  I

My vote is to qualify all of them with a CFUN argument. But this will certainly have repercussions in branches. Let's see what other maintainers think.

I think we settled down that we do want to have accestors. I meant whehter we want to use something like

#define blah(fun) (fun)->df_gimple->blah
#define gimple_blah(fun) (fun)->df_gimple->blah

those might have problems if we want to embed some logic in it (such as
I do with in_ssa_p now testing whether fun->df_gimple is really nonzero,
so I can't use it as LHS anymore).  We can follow tree-flow-inline logic
inline type
  return (fun)->df_gimple->blah
inline void
  fun->df_gimple->blah = val
alternatively with the gimple_ prefixes or some other variant.

Well, I'm biased. I kind-of like blah/set_blah, but I think I'm in the minority, so I won't push for it.

Regarding the accessor name, might as well prefix them with gimple_

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