From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20759 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2011 17:09:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 20749 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jun 2011 17:09:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:08:56 +0000 Received: from wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.81]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p5RH8tDJ017615 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:08:55 -0700 Received: from gwj20 (gwj20.prod.google.com [10.200.10.20]) by wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p5RH8sRO024081 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:08:54 -0700 Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20so3132445gwj.40 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:08:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.213.14 with SMTP id l14mr6810204ang.107.1309194534152; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.136.9 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:08:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110627163937.6C7221DA195@topo.tor.corp.google.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:17:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [pph] New test (issue4629075) From: Diego Novillo To: Gabriel Charette Cc: reply@codereview.appspotmail.com, crowl@google.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg02025.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 13:06, Gabriel Charette wrote: > Just wondering why you're naming x finishing by an underscore "x_", > this is a valid name, but just thinking it's tricky syntax, does this > test anything more? or is it just a preference for private members? No real reason. Just a quick hack I was trying to compile with pph enabled.