Re: Reduce scope of a few 'class loop *loop' variables (was: [PATCH v4] Use range-based for loops for traversing loops)

On 11/24/2021 7:24 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hi! On 2021-07-30T15:58:36+0800, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: on 2021/7/30 下午3:18, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Curious why in some instances we're not removing the 'class loop *loop' declaration, I had a look, and this may suggest some further clean-up? [...

Re: Reduce scope of a few 'class loop *loop' variables (was: [PATCH v4] Use range-based for loops for traversing loops)

Hi, On Wed, Nov 24 2021, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On 2021-07-30T15:58:36+0800, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: >> on 2021/7/30 下午3:18, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >>> Curious why in some instances we're not removing the 'class loop *loop' >>> declaration, I had a look, and this may suggest some further cle

Reduce scope of a few 'class loop *loop' variables (was: [PATCH v4] Use range-based for loops for traversing loops)

Hi! On 2021-07-30T15:58:36+0800, "Kewen.Lin" wrote: > on 2021/7/30 下午3:18, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >> Curious why in some instances we're not removing the 'class loop *loop' >> declaration, I had a look, and this may suggest some further clean-up? > > [...] I like your nice proposed further clean-

Re: [PATCH v4] Use range-based for loops for traversing loops

Hi Thomas, on 2021/7/30 下午3:18, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > Thanks for this nice clean-up. > > Curious why in some instances we're not removing the 'class loop *loop' > declaration, I had a look, and this may suggest some further clean-up? > (See below; so far, all untested!) > > Yeah, s

Re: [PATCH v4] Use range-based for loops for traversing loops

Hi! Thanks for this nice clean-up. Curious why in some instances we're not removing the 'class loop *loop' declaration, I had a look, and this may suggest some further clean-up? (See below; so far, all untested!) But first, is this transformation correct? > --- a/gcc/tree-cfg.c > +++ b/gcc/tre

Re: [PATCH v4] Use range-based for loops for traversing loops

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 4:11 AM Kewen.Lin wrote: > > on 2021/7/24 上午12:10, Martin Sebor wrote: > > On 7/23/21 2:35 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Comparing to v2, this v3 removed the new CTOR with struct loops *loops > >> as Richi clarified. I'd like to support it in a separated follow u

[PATCH v4] Use range-based for loops for traversing loops

on 2021/7/24 上午12:10, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 7/23/21 2:35 AM, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Comparing to v2, this v3 removed the new CTOR with struct loops *loops >> as Richi clarified.  I'd like to support it in a separated follow up >> patch by extending the existing CTOR with an optional argum