On Wed, 05 Dec 2018, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> Define IS_GEN() similarly to our IS_GEN_RANGE(). but use gen instead of
> gen_mask to do the comparison. Now callers can pass then gen as a parameter,
> so we don't require one macro for each gen.
>
> The following spatch was used to convert the users
On 07/12/2018 20:57, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 11:30:28AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/12/2018 01:17, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:37 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
On 06/12/2018 06:11, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Define IS_GEN() similarly to our IS_GEN
On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 11:30:28AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 07/12/2018 01:17, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:37 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 06/12/2018 06:11, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > Define IS_GEN() similarly to our IS_GEN_RANGE(). but
On 07/12/2018 11:30, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/12/2018 01:17, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:37 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
On 06/12/2018 06:11, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Define IS_GEN() similarly to our IS_GEN_RANGE(). but use gen instead of
gen_mask to do the comparison. No
On 07/12/2018 01:17, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:37 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
On 06/12/2018 06:11, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Define IS_GEN() similarly to our IS_GEN_RANGE(). but use gen instead of
gen_mask to do the comparison. Now callers can pass then gen as a parameter,
On 06/12/2018 06:11, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Define IS_GEN() similarly to our IS_GEN_RANGE(). but use gen instead of
gen_mask to do the comparison. Now callers can pass then gen as a parameter,
Since you are calling it out here, I assume there is some good reason to
replace gen_mask with gen?
Define IS_GEN() similarly to our IS_GEN_RANGE(). but use gen instead of
gen_mask to do the comparison. Now callers can pass then gen as a parameter,
so we don't require one macro for each gen.
The following spatch was used to convert the users of these macros:
@@
expression e;
@@
(
- IS_GEN2(e)
+
