This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Repost: RFA [4.1]: improvement to if-conversion and cross-jumping (PR20070)
On Dec 14, 2005, at 7:45 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Bernd asked for *_p names for these functions in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg02031.html .
Can you please discuss this with him and then tell me what
consensus you reached (if any).
I'm open for better suggestions. I see your point that a predicate
shouldn't modify its inputs, but for the most part, this function
_does_ verify that the two rtxes are equivalent.
bla_p names are reserved for a small class of functions that never
hurt anything. If you can tell it did something, then, it can't be
called bla_p. An example of a reasonable use of _p would be if the
object contains some bits that are modified that serve as a cache or
a speed up to make things go faster. And example of something that
isn't ok would be if you merge bits from two delcs into one of them
and return whether or not they were the same.
A cursory look at the code appears to be a modification of at least
one of the operands. unify/merge/smash come to mind for names, not _p.