On Oct 31, 2012, at 2:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:.
> My comment was for isolated code parts that are being rewritten
> (I think it was the wide-int class). Consistency comes first.
In the case of wide int, we only use references in one very narrow way. We use
const T& as parameters instead of
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Would it be OK with a pointer, but keeping the interface the same?
>> That's certainly fine by me.
>
> Yes, a pointer would make things more legible here.
>
>> That's one of the things I'm not sure about after the C++ conversion:
>> I've not
> Would it be OK with a pointer, but keeping the interface the same?
> That's certainly fine by me.
Yes, a pointer would make things more legible here.
> That's one of the things I'm not sure about after the C++ conversion:
> I've noticed some references creep in, but when should we use reference
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> This patch splits out a fairly common operation: that of narrowing a MEM
>> to a particular mode and adjusting the bit number accordingly.
>>
>> I've kept with "bit_field" rather than "bitfield" for consistency with
>> the callers, although we do have "bitfield" in "adjus
> This patch splits out a fairly common operation: that of narrowing a MEM
> to a particular mode and adjusting the bit number accordingly.
>
> I've kept with "bit_field" rather than "bitfield" for consistency with
> the callers, although we do have "bitfield" in "adjust_bitfield_address".
My bad
This patch splits out a fairly common operation: that of narrowing a MEM
to a particular mode and adjusting the bit number accordingly.
I've kept with "bit_field" rather than "bitfield" for consistency with
the callers, although we do have "bitfield" in "adjust_bitfield_address".
Tested as descri
