This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: gphi_iterator? (was Re: [PATCH 09/89] Introduce gimple_phi_iterator)

From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 10:27:35 -0600
Subject: Re: gphi_iterator? (was Re: [PATCH 09/89] Introduce gimple_phi_iterator)
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <1398099480-49147-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <1398099480-49147-10-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <536D23BE dot 3030804 at redhat dot com> <1400081305 dot 22162 dot 144 dot camel at surprise>

On 05/14/14 09:28, David Malcolm wrote:

Thanks.

I'm working my way through the patches, converting them to the latest
approach, where "gimple_phi" becomes "gphi *".

Given that renaming, it occurred to me that the new class
"gimple_phi_iterator" would be better named as
"gphi_iterator" (consistency, and less typing).

Is this renaming OK?  (I wasn't planning to rename the pre-existing
gimple_stmt_iterator)

Yea, that's fine.

jeff

References:
- Re: [PATCH 09/89] Introduce gimple_phi_iterator
  - From: Jeff Law
- gphi_iterator? (was Re: [PATCH 09/89] Introduce gimple_phi_iterator)
  - From: David Malcolm

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