On 2018-10-21 09:14 PM, Michael Ploujnikov wrote:
> Continuing from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg01258.html
>
> Fixed up the code after the change to concat suggested by Bernhard
> Reutner.
>
> Outstanding question still remains:
>
> To write an exact replacement for
Continuing from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg01258.html
Fixed up the code after the change to concat suggested by Bernhard
Reutner.
Outstanding question still remains:
To write an exact replacement for numbered_clone_function_name (apart
from the numbering) I also need to copy
On 2018-10-20 07:39 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 20 October 2018 00:26:15 CEST, Michael Ploujnikov
> wrote:
>> While working on
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00228.html I've
>> accumulated a few easy patches.
>
>
> +/* Return decl name IDENTIFIER with string
On 20 October 2018 00:26:15 CEST, Michael Ploujnikov
wrote:
>While working on
>https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00228.html I've
>accumulated a few easy patches.
+/* Return decl name IDENTIFIER with string SUFFIX appended. */
+
+tree
+suffixed_function_name (tree identifier,
While working on
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00228.html I've
accumulated a few easy patches.
The first one renames the functions in question to hopefully encourage
proper future usage. The other ones use the unnumbered version of the
clone name function where I've verified the
