From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22390 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2018 12:42:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21651 invoked by uid 89); 12 Dec 2018 12:42:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*Ad:D*marvell.com X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:42:02 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5928307D851; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:42:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-117-214.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.214]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F05B60C6D; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:42:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id wBCCfpPP030185; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:41:52 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id wBCCfj0M030184; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:41:45 +0100 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:42:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Steve Ellcey , gcc-patches , richard.sandiford@arm.com Subject: Re: [Patch 2/4][Aarch64] v2: Implement Aarch64 SIMD ABI Message-ID: <20181212124144.GJ12380@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <87pnu6app5.fsf@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87pnu6app5.fsf@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00810.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 12:34:46PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > I considered comparing node->decl and cfun->decl to differentiate > > between definitions and declarations instead of using a new argument > > but having an argument seemed cleaner and clearer. > > Yeah, agreed. I actually disagree, there is no point in passing another argument. You should be able to just check node->definition whether it is a definition or declaration. Jakub