>>> On 22.02.18 at 12:41, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 22/02/18 11:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 22.02.18 at 11:51, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> as-insn-check mutates the passed-in flags.  Rename it to as-insn-add, in 
>>> line
>>> with cc-option-add.  Update all callers.
>> I'm not convinced - cc-option-add makes relatively clear that
>> something is being added to the options passed to CC. If I
>> take as-insn-add this way, the macro would need to add an
>> insn to the AS invocation. While I agree as-insn-check doesn't
>> make clear that it adds any options, I still find this less
>> misleading than the suggested new name. Let's see what
>> others think.
> 
> I'm open to better name suggestions.

The best I can come up with is, well, as-insn-check, as that
reasonably describes at least part of what the construct does.
as-insn-check-and-add-option, besides being too long, isn't
meaningfully better.

>  cc-option-add and as-insn-check
> are basically the same; they make a test based on a proposed construct,
> and end up mutating FLAGS.
> 
> The reason I noticed is because Rogers patch adds an option-no case to
> as-insn-check.

Which doesn't make the name any worse.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Reply via email to