This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 0/3] Compile-time gimple checking, without typedefs
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 13:36:47 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Compile-time gimple checking, without typedefs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <66f4112c-2a2f-4d2b-8f8e-d2011a7982f7 at email dot android dot com> <1399067771-11711-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc3D9XujxhxZnXYLtMCm2KejoLtKpRagg+hGoGfK0j5sVQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <5367B5E6 dot 7020209 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc0cfp-yKwQWi7Tjv=naHJhzJhkD0_nn7uFgonMW7T4EWA at mail dot gmail dot com> <1399315030 dot 8042 dot 119 dot camel at surprise>
On 05/05/14 12:37, David Malcolm wrote:
FWIW I assumed the ick from Jeff was in relation to CamelCase.
Yes. That is a personal preference, of course.
Seems reasonable to me (trailing underscore). Or we could keep the
Note that it's not just GIMPLE_SWITCH that has this problem when using
this naming convention; I believe the list of codes that would have
class names clashing with C++ keywords would be:
IMHO, I think trying to eliminate vowels or similar would be confusing
(e.g. how does one respell "try"? ) and that standardizing on a
trailing underscore for all of these seems to me to be cleaner and