On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, David Malcolm wrote:
>
>> My idea is to introduce a GCC_OPTION macro, and replace the above with:
>>
>> static bool
>> gate_vrp (void)
>> {
>> return GCC_OPTION (flag_tree_vrp) != 0;
>> }
>
> That's only sl
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:15:41AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/30/13 14:39, David Malcolm wrote:
> >[Sending this to gcc-patches to double-check that the idea is sound
> >before continuing to work on this large patch. [1] ]
> >
> >I want to eliminate hidden use of the preprocessor in our code, i
On 10/30/13 14:39, David Malcolm wrote:
[Sending this to gcc-patches to double-check that the idea is sound
before continuing to work on this large patch. [1] ]
I want to eliminate hidden use of the preprocessor in our code, in favor
of using block caps to signal to people reading the code that
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, David Malcolm wrote:
> My idea is to introduce a GCC_OPTION macro, and replace the above with:
>
> static bool
> gate_vrp (void)
> {
> return GCC_OPTION (flag_tree_vrp) != 0;
> }
That's only slightly shorter than the full expansion using global_options;
I'd pref
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:39 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> I want to eliminate hidden use of the preprocessor in our code, in favor
> of using block caps to signal to people reading the code that macro
> magic is happening.
Good idea. In the past this kind of change would be sort-of
controversial (l
[Sending this to gcc-patches to double-check that the idea is sound
before continuing to work on this large patch. [1] ]
I want to eliminate hidden use of the preprocessor in our code, in favor
of using block caps to signal to people reading the code that macro
magic is happening.
As a specific e
