This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tuples] [patch] refactoring of tree_expr_nonzero_warnv_p
- From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: "Rafael Espindola" <espindola at google dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Diego Novillo" <dnovillo at google dot com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:38:53 +0100
- Subject: Re: [tuples] [patch] refactoring of tree_expr_nonzero_warnv_p
- References: <38a0d8450803040209gf52e35fh1f4d76fd5202d1bd@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Rafael Espindola <espindola@google.com> wrote:
> 2008-03-04 Rafael Espindola <espindola@google.com>
> * tree-outof-ssa.c (tree_unary_expr_nonzero_warnv_p): New.
> (tree_binary_expr_nonzero_warnv_p): New.
> (tree_single_expr_nonzero_warnv_p): New.
> (tree_expr_nonzero_warnv_p): Redefine using the new functions.
Please use context diffs when posting patches, and do them inline
rather than with attachments. Thanks.
I find the _expr bits in the function names redundant,
tree_unary_nonzero_warnv_p is shorter and as explicit. It also
matches
fold_unary and friends.
IMHO all this mixing of GIMPLE concepts inside fold-const.c is ugly,
can't we just cp fold-const.c gimple-fold-const.c and only fix the duplicate?
(Yeah, I hope we can trim down both sides and finally get the FEs only
fold what they really need).
Thanks,
Richard.