Eric Blake writes:
> On 02/18/2016 01:51 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>>> It gets renamed to is_unboxed after the review on 10/13. But even after
>>> my patch to convert simple unions, this code will still be
>>> c_type=typ.c_type(is_unboxed=True), unless I figure out a way to rework
>>> .c_ty
On 02/18/2016 01:51 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> It gets renamed to is_unboxed after the review on 10/13. But even after
>> my patch to convert simple unions, this code will still be
>> c_type=typ.c_type(is_unboxed=True), unless I figure out a way to rework
>> .c_type() to not need two separat
Eric Blake writes:
> On 02/17/2016 10:44 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Eric Blake writes:
>>
>>> There's no reason to do two malloc's for a flat union; let's just
>>> inline the branch struct directly into the C union branch of the
>>> flat union.
>>>
>>> Surprisingly, fewer clients were actu
On 02/17/2016 10:44 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
>> There's no reason to do two malloc's for a flat union; let's just
>> inline the branch struct directly into the C union branch of the
>> flat union.
>>
>> Surprisingly, fewer clients were actually using explicit references
Eric Blake writes:
> There's no reason to do two malloc's for a flat union; let's just
> inline the branch struct directly into the C union branch of the
> flat union.
>
> Surprisingly, fewer clients were actually using explicit references
> to the branch types in comparison to the number of flat
There's no reason to do two malloc's for a flat union; let's just
inline the branch struct directly into the C union branch of the
flat union.
Surprisingly, fewer clients were actually using explicit references
to the branch types in comparison to the number of flat unions
thus modified.
This let
