On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Oleg Endo <oleg.e...@t-online.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 14:56 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > but they are used somewhere else. I could replace the uses of those
>> > typedefs in a follow up patch, but for now I wanted to keep the changes
>> > minimal.
>>
>> I didn't mean those cerating typedefs for the pointer type.
>>
>> >> and rename structs accordingly).
>> >
>> > Sorry, I don't get it. Do you have an example in mind?
>>
>> grep for 'typedef struct.*{' in headers. The typedef name is usually
>> the desired one and is used without 'struct'. So it's an orthogonal
>> issue.
>
> Ah, do you mean converting this stuff ...
>
> typedef struct
> {
> cgraph_node_set set;
> unsigned index;
> } cgraph_node_set_iterator;
>
> ... to ...
>
> struct cgraph_node_set_iterator
> {
> ....
>
> right?
> Sure, no problem. But I'd rather do it step by step in separate
> patches. Is it OK to apply the following two as a start?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00458.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00460.html
Yes, those are ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Cheers,
> Oleg
>
