On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:11:24AM -0600, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Similarly named DECL_ABSTRACT, DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN, and DECL_ORIGIN are
> somewhat confusing to my poor brain. Particularly annoying is DECL_ABSTRACT
> which is actually a boolean, unlike the other two.
>
> Would it be OK to rename it something more sensible like DECL_ABSTRACT_P? I
> know this is a longstanding name, but the proposed is clearer and virtually
> the same.
>
> OK for mainline?
IMHO a good idea.
> --- a/gcc/cp/class.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/class.c
> @@ -4580,7 +4580,7 @@ clone_function_decl (tree fn, int update_method_vec_p)
> }
>
> /* Note that this is an abstract function that is never emitted. */
> - DECL_ABSTRACT (fn) = 1;
> + DECL_ABSTRACT_P (fn) = 1;
It'd probably make sense to use 'true' now.
> @@ -10272,7 +10272,7 @@ grokdeclarator (const cp_declarator *declarator,
> clones. The decloning optimization (for space) may
> revert this subsequently if it determines that
> the clones should share a common implementation. */
> - DECL_ABSTRACT (decl) = 1;
> + DECL_ABSTRACT_P (decl) = 1;
Likewise.
> --- a/gcc/tree-inline.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-inline.c
> @@ -5095,7 +5095,7 @@ copy_decl_no_change (tree decl, copy_body_data *id)
> copy = copy_node (decl);
>
> /* The COPY is not abstract; it will be generated in DST_FN. */
> - DECL_ABSTRACT (copy) = 0;
> + DECL_ABSTRACT_P (copy) = 0;
> lang_hooks.dup_lang_specific_decl (copy);
And false here.
> --- a/gcc/varpool.c
> +++ b/gcc/varpool.c
> @@ -704,7 +704,7 @@ add_new_static_var (tree type)
> TREE_STATIC (new_decl) = 1;
> TREE_USED (new_decl) = 1;
> DECL_CONTEXT (new_decl) = NULL_TREE;
> - DECL_ABSTRACT (new_decl) = 0;
> + DECL_ABSTRACT_P (new_decl) = 0;
And here.
Marek
