On 8/16/12, Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > On 8/15/12, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On 2012-08-15 07:29, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > > + typedef typename Element::Element_t Element_t;
> > >
> > > Can we use something less ugly than Element_t?
> > > Such as
> > >
> > > typedef typename Element::T T;
> > >
> > > ? Given that this name is scoped anyway...
> >
> > I do not much like _t names either.
>
> The following is what I'm testing now, it also integrates the
> hashtable support functions and typedef within the existing local
> data types which is IMHO cleaner. (it also shows we can do with
> a janitorial cleanup replacing typedef struct foo_d {} foo; with
> struct foo {}; and the likes)
Yes.
> Bootstrap and regtest ongoing on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, ok?
Looks good to me.
I would have prefered the Element->T rename in a separate patch
so that it is easier to see the core difference.
--
Lawrence Crowl
