From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x442.google.com (mail-wr1-x442.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::442]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCA46383E80F; Mon, 25 May 2020 16:53:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org BCA46383E80F Received: by mail-wr1-x442.google.com with SMTP id j10so2037610wrw.8; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:53:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=o5GKu4OjJGLvPpfwOfplfoMI87Te6klDr7sAXGvaJvs=; b=EjSme4CNEhIlPdaZX9wLcjvVNeHT0EFwb2zAq7+ObpIXFO9O89wva38jTb1wBMnLc6 VjSsFYeCTvXB4C0f1kvuGZ/lZD8DofAG3zsNa0oGcVf0aKiQWu74W5P4wwG0HQzW35+d YN2Ad5rnoAlxzAyyTqaSIXXAGw3dAo5K+ipq0I4sedN2ORWP4NMqMl+wBd3ebI7JQaev Sk05h2x3uPyNpWUFknHgjzH37i8g3bAlGXKY/YuJuaK6U+lmG7ghzs84md9j+tWsnikR lmc0NwuiD5B36XbVw6uvwcBid0w7YR9c9T6FjnSgau81JH6WEOQvPRer9g82RvMMOZLe w5FQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530kxi3mJ8i7fgIbhHxvGrbj0WQPl7s8EZp8smPBOndxbFRvJaDZ YJvCuDFzHO1m/AaJLK/uWzspCWJN X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxaHzSUXGCaoQ8VYXCeigRJb6MJQyKfmRE2e2kO3YAPAcGStwfVQF1NxajaZj5Ym6R+iTP6Qg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:67d2:: with SMTP id n18mr12901959wrw.65.1590425589522; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.212] (host81-138-1-83.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [81.138.1.83]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id z3sm19294804wrm.81.2020.05.25.09.53.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 May 2020 09:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2][PPC64] [PR88877] From: Iain Sandoe In-Reply-To: <20200525164354.GM8462@tucnak> Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 17:53:07 +0100 Cc: Richard Biener , Segher Boessenkool , rguenth@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub Jelinek Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <51244C72-6CEB-4A87-A6E5-9BEB36F6C1AA@googlemail.com> References: <20200523144345.GZ31009@gate.crashing.org> <1590327193-24688-1-git-send-email-kamleshbhalui@gmail.com> <20200524162231.GB31009@gate.crashing.org> <20200525163129.GF31009@gate.crashing.org> <20200525164354.GM8462@tucnak> To: gcc-patches List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 16:53:21 -0000 Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 06:37:57PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >>>> I thought of using std::tuple but it requires c++11 support. >>>> I am not sure we always build gcc with c++11? >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html >>> >>> We do for GCC 11 :-) Since we pay the price for progress, let's reap >>> the >>> benefits as well :-) >> >> Not sure if the benefit is enough to warrant an extra (complex?) >> standard header in almost every TU. > > Yeah, especially when one can just define the 3 fields of the small struct > to be descriptive, rather than being first/second/third. +1, tuple (and pair) have the property that the use of the fields might be obvious to the code author, but probably will not be to the code reader. IMO most of the time as Jakub says something descriptive is better - and I don’t believe it’s a performance penalty. Iain