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: [C++ Patch] Improve delete_sanity locations

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 15:06:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [C++ Patch] Improve delete_sanity locations
References: <5b89d4fe-88b7-b51b-fc0e-11833bde2c34@oracle.com> <4d895279-d74e-7437-7d7c-30c2bd0927b6@redhat.com> <1564601975.9730.30.camel@redhat.com> <299893a2-2683-24de-4cf9-f1d3c9421f06@oracle.com> <1564748861.11470.1.camel@redhat.com>

On 8/2/19 8:27 AM, David Malcolm wrote:

On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 14:02 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:

Hi,

On 31/07/19 21:39, David Malcolm wrote:

[snip]

I don't care for "cp_expr_loc_or_loc".

By "_or_here" do you mean "or input_location"?

Calling it "cp_expr_loc_or_input_location" would spell out what it
does, but would be rather long.


Thanks for your feedback. At this point I don't feel very strongly
about
the issue, and, well, hopefully it's just temporary material, but I
tested the below which proposes the name cp_expr_loc_or_input_loc.
Seems
a good balance to me. What do you think?


I like it, FWIW.


OK.

Jason

References:
- Re: [C++ Patch] Improve delete_sanity locations
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] Improve delete_sanity locations
  - From: David Malcolm

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