I introduced this in revision 7 due to a request from James Greenhalgh. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg00963.html
> Given that this is all so mechanical, I'd have a preference towards
> refactoring this to loop over some structured data.
Do you mean, that I should get rid of the typedef and leave the struct without
it?
Or should I completely drop the struct?
> On 16 Oct 2015, at 14:37, Oleg Endo <oleg.e...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 22:03 +0000, Benedikt Huber wrote:
>>
>> +/* Add builtins for reciprocal square root. */
>> +
>> +void
>> +aarch64_init_builtin_rsqrt (void)
>> +{
>> + tree fndecl = NULL;
>> + tree ftype = NULL;
>> +
>> + tree V2SF_type_node = build_vector_type (float_type_node, 2);
>> + tree V2DF_type_node = build_vector_type (double_type_node, 2);
>> + tree V4SF_type_node = build_vector_type (float_type_node, 4);
>> +
>> + typedef struct
>> + {
>> + tree type_node;
>> + const char *builtin_name;
>> + int function_code;
>> + } builtin_decls_data;
>
> There is an ongoing effort to remove all the unnecessary typedef struct
> and enum etc stuff. Please try not to add more of it.
>
> Cheers,
> Oleg
>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
