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.
