Re: [PATCH] add hash_set

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 08/04/14 11:15, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 03:44:17PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:50 AM,  <tsaunders@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > > From: Trevor Saunders <tsaunders@mozilla.com>
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > this adds a hash_set wrapper around hash_table, and then replaces usage of pointer_set with it.
> > >
> > > bootstrapped +regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, ok?
> > >
> > > Trev
> > >
> > > ada/
> > >
> > >          * gcc-interface/trans.c: Use hash_set instead of pointer_set.
> > >
> > > c-family/
> > >
> > >          * c-gimplify.c: Use hash_set instead of pointer_set.
> > >
> > > c/
> > >
> > >          * c-decl.c: Use hash_set instead of pointer_set.
> > >
> > > cp/
> > >
> > >          * class.c, cp-gimplify.c, cp-tree.h, decl.c, decl2.c, error.c,
> > >          method.c, name-lookup.c, pt.c, semantics.c, tree.c: Use hash_set
> > >          instead of pointer_set.
> > >
> > > fortran/
> > >
> > >          * openmp.c, trans-decl.c: Use hash_set instead of pointer_set.
> > >
> > > gcc/
> > >
> > >          * hash-set.h: new File.
> > >          * cfgexpand.c, cfgloop.c, cgraph.c, cgraphbuild.c, cgraphunit.c,
> > >          cprop.c, cse.c, gimple-walk.c, gimple-walk.h, gimplify.c, godump.c,
> > >          ipa-devirt.c, ipa-pure-const.c, ipa-visibility.c, ipa.c, lto-cgraph.c,
> > >          lto-streamer-out.c, stmt.c, tree-cfg.c, tree-core.h, tree-eh.c,
> > >          tree-inline.c, tree-inline.h, tree-nested.c, tree-pretty-print.c,
> > >          tree-ssa-loop-niter.c, tree-ssa-phiopt.c, tree-ssa-threadedge.c,
> > >          tree-ssa-uninit.c, tree.c, tree.h, value-prof.c, varasm.c,
> > >          varpool.c: Use hash_set instead of pointer_set.
> >
> >
> > This changelog is less than useful and really does not follow the
> > GCC/GNU coding style.  Please expand and place all functions which are
>
> I'm pretty sure its written somewhere that format is ok, and there's
> precedent for it.  Note the update all callers rule could also be used
> to just write
Note we discussed this at Cauldron and there was a general consensus 
that the "update all callers" style was reasonable.

FWIW, that's actually be approved for use in GCC for a very long time. 
We've allowed using that style, without having to list each function 
changed, since the late 90s.

jeff