On Mon, 9 Dec 2013, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 21:27 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Oleg Endo wrote:
> > >On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 16:57 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >> > * asan.c (transform_statements): Eli
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 16:47 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> Yes, longer-term I'd prefer member functions. The approach I posted
> approach gives identical results to the status quo after a trip through
> the preprocessor, so is somewhat lower-risk than introducing inlinable
> member functions. (and
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 21:27 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Oleg Endo wrote:
> >On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 16:57 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> > * asan.c (transform_statements): Eliminate use of
> >last_basic_block
> >> > in
Oleg Endo wrote:
>On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 16:57 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > * asan.c (transform_statements): Eliminate use of
>last_basic_block
>> > in favor of last_basic_block_for_fn, in order to make use
>of cfun
>> >
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 16:57 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > * asan.c (transform_statements): Eliminate use of last_basic_block
> > in favor of last_basic_block_for_fn, in order to make use of cfun
> > explicit.
>
> Ca
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> * asan.c (transform_statements): Eliminate use of last_basic_block
> in favor of last_basic_block_for_fn, in order to make use of cfun
> explicit.
Can we please make all this _for_fn go away?
Ciao!
Steven
