This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] manage dom-walk_data initialization and finalization with constructors and destructors
- From: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- To: Trevor Saunders <tsaunders at mozilla dot com>
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:18:14 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] manage dom-walk_data initialization and finalization with constructors and destructors
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20130904145911 dot GC17620 at tsaunders-iceball dot corp dot tor1 dot mozilla dot com> <522759C8 dot 5040802 at redhat dot com> <20130911000350 dot GA28492 at tsaunders-iceball dot corp dot tor1 dot mozilla dot com> <52389CB1 dot 60504 at redhat dot com> <5239126A dot 6010702 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1309181640400 dot 9949 at wotan dot suse dot de> <5239D985 dot 4080205 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1309181849550 dot 9949 at wotan dot suse dot de> <87fvt065ro dot fsf at talisman dot default> <CAFiYyc0xY9Wrn1MhWjM-u5L+OE583Yr4H5HedYi4yYaMOudp-Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130920120550 dot GA24624 at tsaunders-iceball dot corp dot tor1 dot mozilla dot com>
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> > > very ugly FWIW. I only added the underscores because that's what
> > > the conventions said.
> > >
> > > But we're never going to get consensus on this kind of thing. E.g.
> > > I know some people really hate the GNU formatting style (although I
> > > very much like it). So I just held my nose while writing the patch.
> > Btw, I've come around multiple coding-styles in the past and I
> > definitely would prefer m_mode / m_count to mark members vs. mode_ and
> > count_. (and s_XXX for static members IIRC).
> what about a_foo for arguments?
That would go too far. If we're marking member for reasons of reminding
ourself that the access involves an indirection (amongst other reasons),
i.e. it's slower than accessing a local variable, then the same can't be
said from arguments. It's just another local variable mostly. And about
remembering that it's in current scope, well, it's just there at the very
top of the function. (Or IOW, we could do without the last 20 years :) )
> I'd prefer m_/s_foo for members / static things too fwiw.
Me as well. It's still ugly, but not so unsymmetric as the trailing