Re: Reserve __is_trivially_relocatable for a builtin?

[Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

> On 02/02/19 01:25 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 01:12, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87106#c15 , Arthur O'Dwyer
> > > suggests that the name __is_trivially_relocatable would be a good name for
> > > a future builtin, and we should use something else for this class. Does
> > > anyone have an opinion on whether we should rename and what other name we
> > > should use? I am tempted by __is_trivially_relocatable__,
>
> Inconsistent with everything else in libstdc++.
>
> > > _Is_trivially_relocatable
>
> This would be fine.
>
> > > or ___is_trivially_relocatable ...
>
> Definitely not this  :-)
>
> > We have a mixture of __do_{your chosen name goes here} and {your
> > chosen name goes here}_impl
> > throughout the library. There's no real chosen policy for it. I have
> > strong objections to playing
> > games with the amount of underscores, library maintainers don't see
> > them. :) My suggestion
> > is to rename the current one to __is_trivially_bitwise_relocatable.
>
> That would be OK too.

It is getting a bit long and redundant (I started doing the change, 
noticed that a line got too long, and was too lazy to reformat), so my 2 
choices now are: _Is_trivially_relocatable or __is_bitwise_relocatable

I'll probably pick the first since Jonathan already said it was fine, 
although I can be quickly persuaded to use the second.

--
Marc Glisse