> On 11/12/19 11:07 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: > > Since ipa_node_params_sum->get might be a bit too long, perhaps we could > > use ipcp_node_sum->get or something similar. And similarly for edges. > > > > What do you think? > > I'm for the suggested change!
Yes, I like it too (and was about to suggest it). I ould hold it until the jump function revamp gets into mainline. Lets discuss proper names for the summaries tomorrow. In general I sort of consideer use of "node" in meaning of function a mistake from time callgraph was just a callgraph. Also the summary is not ipcp only, so perhaps something like ipa_function_params_sum but that is long again. Honza > > Martin
