From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3342 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2013 19:34:14 -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 3329 invoked by uid 89); 25 Nov 2013 19:34:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:34:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAPJY4LN022313 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:34:04 -0500 Received: from stumpy.slc.redhat.com (ovpn-113-65.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.65]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAPJY3Ii004769; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:34:03 -0500 Message-ID: <5293A62B.4060706@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:18:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Malcolm , Andrew MacLeod CC: Jakub Jelinek , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix checking of gimple types References: <5271CBF9.2070005@redhat.com> <1383236801-13234-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <1383236801-13234-4-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <5284806A.2050607@redhat.com> <1384806352.11568.80.camel@surprise> <20131121221933.GQ892@tucnak.redhat.com> <528E8837.5080300@redhat.com> <20131121224257.GR892@tucnak.redhat.com> <528E9135.7060408@redhat.com> <1385393718.11568.266.camel@surprise> In-Reply-To: <1385393718.11568.266.camel@surprise> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg03250.txt.bz2 On 11/25/13 08:35, David Malcolm wrote: > > I'm not a fan of these "_layout" names, but I'm not sure what better to > call them. Perhaps: > GSS_OMP_PARALLEL_LAYOUT -> GSS_OMP_WITH_CLAUSES_CHILD_FN_DATA_ARG > GSS_OMP_SINGLE_LAYOUT -> GSS_OMP_WITH_CLAUSES > GSS_OMP_ATOMIC_STORE_LAYOUT -> GSS_OMP_WITHOUT_SEQ_WITH_VAL > with analogous names for the corresponding structs. I think the _layout names are fine for now. We might want change them to be more descriptive at a later date. > > OK for trunk? Yes. > > Sorry again for breaking this. It happens. I suspect you'll look beyond the sharing of data structures to build a class hierarchy next time :-) Thanks for quickly addressing this. Jeff