On 11/8/18 9:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:42 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
Stupid boring changes.
OK?
Well, IMHO using m_min is making clear you are accessing a member
while using min () does not.
There is already prior art here. I believe I discussed this before and
committed some bits like this.
So no, please do not make this kind of changes?
It also makes it easier for my work going forward. So not technically
needed, but it would make my life easier as I change the min/max
implementation in the distant future. Please?
Aldy
