Hi Thomas, It does look cleaner now. Can I ask you to add a comment near the declaration of got_offsets on how to use it, meaning the shifting required. User should know how to use a value without having to search for current usages.
Other then that, looks OK to me. BTW, I did not check correctness, just reviewed the style and logic. Miki. On 6 November 2012 11:27, Thomas Preud'homme <[email protected]> wrote: > Le mardi 6 novembre 2012 16:37:21, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit : > > Le mardi 6 novembre 2012 16:22:00, Milutin Jovanović a écrit : > > > Sure, I agree I don't like it. It create a risk of forgetting it for the > > future. But accessors or bitfield doesn't change anything. Bitfield needs > > to shift the value to the left for each use and accessors need to be used > > for each case. Someone reading tcc.h will be tempted to use the field > > immediately. At least bitfield makes it more clear to the compiler what's > > going on but it will not catch a mistake such has reading the value > > directly from got_offset. > > I went with bit fields in the end. I also modified put_got_offset so that > a value > can be set twice. Although it's not needed now, put_got_offset could be > used by > someone in this way later on and that would lead to subtle bugs. > > > > Small stylistic issue is that I (personally) don't like '& -2' mask. I > > > think this obfuscates the intent, and the simple '& ~1' is more usual, > > > and it should not be any slower. -2 also assumes two's complement > > > implementations... > > Hence gone :) > > I'll appreciate another review if you have time. Thanks again. > > Thomas >
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
