This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: IPA merge part 1: localize SSA variables
Jan Hubicka wrote on 11/15/06 15:59:
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.
Jan Hubicka wrote on 11/15/06 15:49:
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
OK, I will use gimple_df then (or some shorter variant?). What about
the ancestor macros/functions problem? I
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
fun->df_gimple->blah = val
alternatively with the gimple_ prefixes or some other variant.
Regarding the accessor name, might as well prefix them with gimple_