On 2015/01/22 at 12:24:59, titzer wrote:
On 2015/01/22 12:15:29, Michael Starzinger wrote: > LGTM. But I have to say I am not a huge fan of the "auto" proliferation> everywhere. Is it really necessary? Does it really improve the situation?> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/864293002/diff/1/src/compiler/graph-visualizer.cc
> File src/compiler/graph-visualizer.cc (right): > >
https://codereview.chromium.org/864293002/diff/1/src/compiler/graph-visualizer.cc#newcode573
> src/compiler/graph-visualizer.cc:573: for (auto predecessor :
> current->predecessors()) {
> remark: I know you all like the "auto" magic, but I would
find "BasicBlock
> predecessor" more readable. Just putting it out there, feel free to
ignore
me in
> this regard. :) >> https://codereview.chromium.org/864293002/diff/1/src/compiler/scheduler.cc> File src/compiler/scheduler.cc (right): > >
https://codereview.chromium.org/864293002/diff/1/src/compiler/scheduler.cc#newcode1035
> src/compiler/scheduler.cc:1035: auto pred = block->predecessors().begin(); > remark: Especially here, I have to think hard to figure out that "pred" is a> BasicBlock here. :/
As per in-person discussion, my feeling on the auto is to only use it where it
is obvious from context what the type is:
for (auto block : x->blocks()) // clearly a Block of some kindfor (auto instr : x->instructions()) // clearly an Instruction of some kind
for (auto b : x->predecessors()) // less clear, better to make it explicit for (BasicBlock* b : x->predecessors()) // now clear
SGTM https://codereview.chromium.org/864293002/ -- -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
