This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH: Use VAR_P instead of direct TREE_CODE (t) == VAR_DECL
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at axiomatics dot org>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:26:06 +0200
- Subject: Re: C++ PATCH: Use VAR_P instead of direct TREE_CODE (t) == VAR_DECL
- References: <87mwtmkxil dot fsf at euclid dot axiomatics dot org> <5155C755 dot 1000107 at oracle dot com> <87a9pmw34o dot fsf at euclid dot axiomatics dot org>
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <email@example.com> wrote:
> Paolo Carlini <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> | Hi,
> | On 03/29/2013 04:59 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > This patch introduces the predicate VAR_P and use it in place of direct
> | >
> | > TREE_CODE (t) == VAR_DECL
> | >
> | > It improves readability and makes predicates easier to follow.
> | > Tested on an x86_64-suse-linux. Applying to trunk.
> | Thanks.
> | Do you think it would also make sense to consistently use in C++
> | front-end TYPE_PTR_P instead of TREE_CODE (t) == POINTER_TYPE? It's
> | something I noticed a while ago when I cleaned-up predicated related
> | to pointers and occurred to me again now that you are doing some of
> | this kind of work. If you like I can do this bit.
> | Thanks,
> | Paolo.
> Yes, you are absolutely right. Thanks for volunteering.
Sorry for chiming in late - but VAR_P loses the fact that we are checking
for a decl ... VAR_DECL_P would be more like following existing practice
(otherwise we can shorten VAR_OR_FUNCTION_DECL_P to
VAR_OR_FUNCTION_P for example). As for further cleanups we seem
to have a few IS_... macros as well (one even IS_..._P).
> -- Gaby