From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 87492 invoked by alias); 20 May 2016 19:17:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jit-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: jit-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 87440 invoked by uid 89); 20 May 2016 19:17:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.99.1 on sourceware.org X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Message-ID: <1463771828.7319.3.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] jit: implement gcc_jit_rvalue_set_bool_require_tail_call From: David Malcolm To: Trevor Saunders Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, jit@gcc.gnu.org Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20160517224901.GB5705@ball> References: <1463522492-43504-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <1463522492-43504-4-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <20160517224901.GB5705@ball> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Fri, 20 May 2016 19:17:10 +0000 (UTC) X-SW-Source: 2016-q2/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2016-05-17 at 18:49 -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 06:01:32PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > This implements the libgccjit support for must-tail-call via > > a new: > > gcc_jit_rvalue_set_bool_require_tail_call > > API entrypoint. > > It seems to me like that's not a great name, the rvalue and bool > parts > are just about the argument types, not what the function does. > Wouldn't > gcc_jit_set_call_requires_tail_call be better? Maybe. I was thinking of it from the point of view of methods; it's effectively a method on gcc_jit_rvalue. The "set_bool" is for consistency with various gcc_jit_context_ entrypoints. FWIW, I've committed the patch as-is; all of the must-tail-call patches are now in trunk, as of r236531.