On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@axiomatics.org> wrote: >> Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> 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). > > Richard.
If we are checking for a VAR, we necessarily checking for a VAR decl.. The purpose of the macro is make the predicates more readable. I would not mind having VAR_OR_FUNCTION_P instead. Yes, we should get rid of the IS_. -- Gaby