On June 9, 2017 10:07:36 PM GMT+02:00, Jason Merrill wrote:
>On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Jason Merrill
>wrote:
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Martin Sebor
>wrote:
>>> On 05/18/2017 08:30 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I got tired of writing strcmp (IDENTIFIER_POINTER and decided t
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 05/18/2017 08:30 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>> I got tired of writing strcmp (IDENTIFIER_POINTER and decided to wrap
>>> it in an inline function. I decided to use "id_strcmp" i
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 05/18/2017 08:30 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> I got tired of writing strcmp (IDENTIFIER_POINTER and decided to wrap
>> it in an inline function. I decided to use "id_strcmp" instead of
>> just overloading strcmp, but I don't feel strong
On 05/18/2017 08:30 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I got tired of writing strcmp (IDENTIFIER_POINTER and decided to wrap
it in an inline function. I decided to use "id_strcmp" instead of
just overloading strcmp, but I don't feel strongly about that choice.
The second patch changes all existing uses o
I got tired of writing strcmp (IDENTIFIER_POINTER and decided to wrap
it in an inline function. I decided to use "id_strcmp" instead of
just overloading strcmp, but I don't feel strongly about that choice.
The second patch changes all existing uses of that pattern to use the
new function.
OK for