This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Use predicates for RTL objects


On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 08:14:01PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:12:33PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:04:53PM +0000, Michael Matz wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 	=> x->is_a (REG)
> > > 
> > > Oh god, please no.  Currently at least the RTL parts of GCC still have 
> > > mostly a consistent and obvious style, which is a good thing.  I have no 
> > > idea why anyone would think the above is easier to read than REG_P (x).
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ciao,
> > > Michael.
> > > P.S: Consider this: the current style served us quite well for the last 35 
> > > or so years, so before suggesting style changes, shouldn't you first work 
> > > on the sources for some time?
> > 
> > Well, the main point of the email was to ask for review of a patchset
> > that attempts to make progress on a TODO that has been outstanding for
> > at least 15 of those 35 years.
> 
> Not everything that is in some TODO list somewhere is something generally
> agreed upon.
> 
> 	Jakub

Surely there's general agreement on using REG_P etc? I don't see anyone
objecting to it, and that's all the patchset does: to avoid any
confusion the second half of the email asking about opinions on is_a is
entirely independent from the first half describing the existing patchset.


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