On 05/18/2017 08:30 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I got tired of writing strcmp (IDENTIFIER_POINTER and decided to wrap
it in an inline function. I decided to use "id_strcmp" instead of
just overloading strcmp, but I don't feel strongly about that choice.
The second patch changes all existing uses of that pattern to use the
new function.
OK for trunk?
Since all the uses are of the form !id_strcmp(), would taking
a step further and introducing a bool id_equal() be going too
far?
Besides being (arguably) easier to read, it would get around
the question of whether it should be !id_strcmp() or
id_strcmp == 0, or perhaps even 0 == id_strcmp().
Martin
