On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:00:19 +0100 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 04:55:29PM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > >> I think you should use build_zero_cst(size_type_node) instead of > > >> size_zero_node as size_zero_node is of type sizetype which is not the > > >> same as size_type_node. Otherwise looks good. > > > > > > In the software design classes I took this was called a design error: Not > > > choosing sufficiently different names for different artifacts. It was > > > considered a beginner's error. > > > > Yeah, sizetype vs. size_type_node is confusing, to say the least.. > > The first one is GCC internal type for representing sizes, the latter is > the C size_t (usually they have the same precision, they always have the > same signedness (unsigned)). > In the past sizetype actually has been a signed type with very special > behavior. I am still wondering if it does not make sense to have something like gfc_size_t_zero_node to prevent us from repeating build_zero_cst (size_type_node) all the time. I had to use it 16 times, i.e., 16 times the code for building a zero size type node is generated instead of a reference to a "constant". And I don't want to know how often size_zero_node is used in the wrong location. - Andre -- Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
