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: [pph] Refuse to generate PPH with #include_next (issue5558045)

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
To: Gabriel Charette <gcharette1 at gmail dot com>
Cc: crowl at google dot com, reply at codereview dot appspotmail dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:42:45 -0500
Subject: Re: [pph] Refuse to generate PPH with #include_next (issue5558045)
References: <20120118222650.385EAAE1D0@tobiano.tor.corp.google.com> <CAAb05gES7B+_RhuSS9toUG8bRUN_OwkG9kWwJuXr+YdfENAgMg@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/28/12 5:00 PM, Gabriel Charette wrote:

Why do you need two functions: pph_stream_close and
pph_stream_close_no_flush only to call pph_stream_close_1 with a
different flag? Seems like leaving
pph_stream_close_1 as pph_stream_close and simply making the calls
themselves with true/false flags is simpler...

Well, I find it clearer to have more explicit names for the API than using flags.

Diego.

References:
- [pph] Refuse to generate PPH with #include_next (issue5558045)
  - From: Diego Novillo

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