From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 135F13857C50 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 08:45:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 135F13857C50 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rguenther@suse.de X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D712AFAA; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 08:45:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:45:11 +0100 (CET) From: Richard Biener To: Martin Sebor cc: Jakub Jelinek , Jason Merrill , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Patch ping In-Reply-To: <3269e968-0271-9f0e-9f2b-833cc1988c9a@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20210324114436.GH186063@tucnak> <291474dd-6c23-3d74-1067-4d92b029ed2d@gmail.com> <20210324164052.GJ186063@tucnak> <3269e968-0271-9f0e-9f2b-833cc1988c9a@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 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: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 08:45:15 -0000 On Wed, 24 Mar 2021, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 3/24/21 10:40 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:45:31AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > >> E.g., OEP_IGNORE_MEMBER_OFFSET or OEP_SAME_MEMBER_OFFSET (for > >> the converse of the first) or something like that, but hopefully > >> you get the idea. > > > > Neither of these look like a good name to me, OEP_IGNORE_MEMBER_OFFSET > > seems like a request that member offset is not important to the equality, > > it is always important, but in the new mode we want not just the member > > offset to be equal, but also the fields to be the same, i.e. a stronger > > requirement. > > > > So, what about > > /* For OEP_ADDRESS_OF of COMPONENT_REFs, only consider same fields as > > equivalent rather than also different fields with the same offset. */ > > OEP_ADDRESS_OF_SAME_FIELD = 256 > > This name works for me. Works for me as well, aka OK. Richard. > Thanks > Martin > > > > > Jakub > > > > > -- Richard Biener SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany; GF: Felix Imendörffer; HRB 36809 (AG Nuernberg)