On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote:
>>> 2012-11-15 Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com>
>>>
>>> Adjust for new vec API
>>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion/cxx-vec)
>>>
>>> * c-common.c: Use new vec API in vec.h.
>>> * c-common.h: Likewise.
>>> * c-gimplify.c: Likewise.
>>> * c-pragma.c: Likewise.
>>> * c-pretty-print.c: Likewise.
>>> * c-pretty-print.h: Likewise.
>>> * c-semantics.c: Likewise.
>>> * c-decl.c: Likewise.
>>> * c-parser.c: Likewise.
>>> * c-tree.h: Likewise.
>>> * c-typeck.c: Likewise.
>>
>>
>>> {
>>> gcc_assert (decl && DECL_P (decl) && TREE_STATIC (decl));
>>>
>>> - while (!VEC_empty (tree, types_used_by_cur_var_decl))
>>> + while (types_used_by_cur_var_decl &&
>>> !types_used_by_cur_var_decl->is_empty ())
>>
>> vec_safe_is_empty?
>
> Strictly speaking, yes. But in this case, the call to ->is_empty() is
> already protected by a non-NULL test for types_used_by_cur_var_decl.
> So you can save yourself the duplicated test.
What I meant is: the line above could be replaced by
whlie (!vec_safe_is_empty (types_used_by_cur_var_decl))
Ian
