From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5921 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2003 16:07:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5907 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 16:07:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 16:07:02 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18psPC-0001Xz-00 for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 11:03:06 -0500 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23G36q16835 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:03:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (vpn50-52.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.52]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23G34V25691 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:03:04 -0500 Received: from speedy.slc.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h23G31uw002038; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:03:02 -0700 Received: from speedy (law@localhost) by speedy.slc.redhat.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h23G2x9A002007; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:02:59 -0700 Message-Id: <200303031602.h23G2x9A002007@speedy.slc.redhat.com> X-Authentication-Warning: speedy.slc.redhat.com: law owned process doing -bs To: Diego Novillo cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Reply-To: law@redhat.com Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] coding style for structure fields In-Reply-To: Your message of "03 Mar 2003 10:40:13 EST." <1046706013.29022.11.camel@tornado> From: law@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:04:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 In message <1046706013.29022.11.camel@tornado> , Diego Novillo writes: >I think I'm getting sick of this. I see two problems: Can't blame you. I'm not a big fan of the inline accessor functions :-) >I realize that these stylistic issues are highly subjective, but I'd >like to get an idea of what other folks think. Should we move inline >with the rest of GCC and use lvalue-macros? Should we maintain the >current get/set inline macros? I would recommend you use the schemes used elsewhere in GCC, namely lvalue macros. jeff