On 07/19/2016 01:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/17/2016 09:52 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
+ if (is_vla)
+ gcc_assert (warn_vla_limit > 0);
+ if (!is_vla)
+ gcc_assert (warn_alloca_limit > 0);
if-else ? Or perhaps:
Shouldn't really matter, except perhaps in a -O0 compilation. Though I
think else-if makes it slightly clearer.
My preference would've been the if/else. The missing else was an oversight.
However, since I really don't care, the last posted patch uses this:
>> gcc_assert (!is_vla || warn_vla_limit > 0);
>> gcc_assert (is_vla || warn_alloca_limit > 0);
> Would be acceptable as well. I think any of the 3 is fine and leave it
> to Aldy's discretion which to use.
>
> Jeff
