On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2017, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>> On 06/14/2017 07:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> >> (canonize_attr_name): New function.
>> >
>> > I think this should be "canonica
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 06/14/2017 07:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> (canonize_attr_name): New function.
> >
> > I think this should be "canonicalize"; "canonize" means something else.
> >
> > Jason
> >
>
On 06/14/2017 07:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> (canonize_attr_name): New function.
>
> I think this should be "canonicalize"; "canonize" means something else.
>
> Jason
>
Yes, I hope it's a cosmetic problem. In general, do you wel
On 06/14/2017 06:40 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>
are you sure this is needed? This seems to be solely arguments to
attributes.
>>>
>>> It's need for cases like:
>>> __intN_t (8, __QI__);
>>
>> But __QI__ is not processed in lookup_attribute, is
On 06/14/2017 11:24 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
(canonize_attr_name): New function.
I think this should be "canonicalize"; "canonize" means something else.
Right. I was about to make the same observation but then grepped
GCC sources
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> (canonize_attr_name): New function.
I think this should be "canonicalize"; "canonize" means something else.
Jason
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> are you sure this is needed? This seems to be solely arguments to
> >> attributes.
> >
> > It's need for cases like:
> > __intN_t (8, __QI__);
>
> But __QI__ is not processed in lookup_attribute, is it? So canonizing that
> looks unrelated? I di
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 06/14/2017 11:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 06/13/2017 03:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> After
On 06/14/2017 11:07 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 06/13/2017 03:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
After some discussions with Richi, I would like to propose patch tha
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 06/13/2017 03:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> After some discussions with Richi, I would like to propose patch that will
>>> come up with a canonical name of attribute
On 06/13/2017 03:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> After some discussions with Richi, I would like to propose patch that will
>> come up with a canonical name of attribute names. That means
>> __attribute__((__abi_tag__))
>> will b
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> After some discussions with Richi, I would like to propose patch that will
> come up with a canonical name of attribute names. That means
> __attribute__((__abi_tag__))
> will be given 'abi_tag' as IDENTIFIER_NAME of the attribute.
Hello.
After some discussions with Richi, I would like to propose patch that will
come up with a canonical name of attribute names. That means
__attribute__((__abi_tag__))
will be given 'abi_tag' as IDENTIFIER_NAME of the attribute. The change can
improve
attribute name lookup and we can delete
13 matches
Mail list logo
