From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 557D53858D20 for ; Thu, 2 May 2024 20:09:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 557D53858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 557D53858D20 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1714680584; cv=none; b=BN5wqQVM+Xsm4ArkvN+VgORaFfC/LXBRwCTToA3O4VB7e1kvpHAU1XZPP+UiTkvvl53blNGRkA28NCuKOZBGof6TG+2abmtcFwxUfRTX0yGKfds2wgI+EB0/OfI7Y4RtbnldZOckAADCWDa9LfkygoGHCFlgOc4Y4+inOMm0KvE= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1714680584; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jZQ83Akfgh4FOrw5+yMOmayarDfqFTD1o1Si6gDOIng=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=G2kHJioiFG8mW3aGeprVkuajijSGHYe3KtTWrOPUtfCENX8WJmpo6K1W0mtaWkEzhSKtIy4T5LHW64h3xWo92zuBWBs5eI1eLwiUe8KGsoBMHSOBxmNKip15p/MnAs7rKrinSlyuDLOxDfJABjXrnhjyEgj0DP+B16Ql82V0XB4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1714680583; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=KuKlHppvT6wQ+OrVENDWX+DNIJgE8N8XGYfdL857904=; b=NI7Mf1YLrl+AGAhbl08T0NGH1iWDCe5peAMf3OOkICXEPZG3pEEaq9pHo0e3eDOoFYLwTx DWDC70et4XmswOLNPMphh+dAX5exwZV2agsaC6OHofnd/hrsESHxmvFpoqrCuY/KdANHwx s03WAAzM7a68ss5OJvoDzBtd2mCRDho= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-606-Ec1eoHkzMrqq0VlaRenDXg-1; Thu, 02 May 2024 16:09:40 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Ec1eoHkzMrqq0VlaRenDXg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.8]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4BA480017B; Thu, 2 May 2024 20:09:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.45.224.64]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ACC0C13FA1; Thu, 2 May 2024 20:09:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 442K9QSJ1761695 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 2 May 2024 22:09:26 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 442K9PKV1761694; Thu, 2 May 2024 22:09:25 +0200 Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 22:09:25 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Ken Matsui Cc: Jason Merrill , Iain Sandoe , Marek Polacek , Ville Voutilainen , Patrick Palka , Ken Matsui , GCC Patches , libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Trait built-in naming convention Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <21abf361-86be-4c67-a845-9abc3a88a061@redhat.com> <14D48642-B157-4F2F-B008-F28691274E7A@googlemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.8 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 12:52:59PM -0700, Ken Matsui wrote: > > This seems to be the prevailing sentiment, so let's continue that way. > > Thanks for the input. > > I actually found that we have two built-in type traits prefixed with > __builtin: __builtin_is_corresponding_member and That is a FE builtin, not a trait, and is very much different from the __is_* traits, is varargs with extra processing, I don't think any of the normal traits accepts pointer to members. > __builtin_is_pointer_interconvertible_with_class. Do we want to > update these to use __ instead for consistency? No, I think we want to keep them as is. Jakub