On 8/8/19 12:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 02:35:27PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: >> Surely there's general agreement on using REG_P etc? I don't see anyone > > No objections from me for using REG_P and other *_P macros more. Right. These are convenience macros and I think they're generally a good thing. Other good examples would be things like POINTER_TYPE_P which accepts POINTER_TYPE or REFERENCE type -- it's way to easy to do something like TREE_TYPE (x) == POINTER_TYPE and thus miss handling reference types.
> >> objecting to it, and that's all the patchset does: to avoid any >> confusion the second half of the email asking about opinions on is_a is >> entirely independent from the first half describing the existing patchset. > > My comment was mainly targetted at the ->is_a stuff, but also a general > comment that having something written in some wiki doesn't mean there is > agreement on it. Agreed on both points. jeff
