From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED1F3856974 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:45:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 2ED1F3856974 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 29LHiRN9004842; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:44:28 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 29LHiRKl004841; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:44:27 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 12:44:27 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Aldy Hernandez , GCC patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rename nonzero_bits to known_zero_bits. Message-ID: <20221021174427.GX25951@gate.crashing.org> References: <20221021131426.308205-1-aldyh@redhat.com> <20221021164533.GW25951@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 06:51:17PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:45:33AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 03:14:26PM +0200, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > * asan.cc (handle_builtin_alloca): Rename *nonzero* to *known_zero*. > > > > Our "nonzero" means "not known to be zero", not "known to be zero", so > > this renaming makes it worse than it was. Rename it to > > Agreed. > > I think maybe_nonzero_bits would be fine. Yes, but the shorter nam known_zero is much better. Converting to that is a bit more work, cannot really be mechanic: code simplifications are needed to make things better instead of adding another layer of double negations, and variable names and comments should be changes as well. > Anyway, the reason it is called this way is that we have similar APIs > on the RTL side, nonzero_bits* in rtlanal.cc. I am well aware ;-) > So if we rename, it should be renamed consistently. Yes. Segher