Hi! On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 04:28:51PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 17:30:43 +0530 > Ajit Agarwal via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > * ree.cc(is_feasible_elim_across_basic_blocks): > > We often use the lispy _p suffix for predicates. > Maybe eliminate_across_bbs_p would be shorter.
A bit shorter, but much less clear, and that is the actual reason to keep names short -- so this misses the goal. Also, many things currently called _p are not predicates (and/or in some cases are not even functions!) > > + if (use == NULL) return NULL; > > Missing newline before return. And better style is if (!use) > > +#if 0 > > /* Get all the reaching definitions of an instruction. The definitions are > > desired for REG used in INSN. Return the definition list or NULL if a > > definition is missing. If DEST is non-NULL, additionally push the INSN > > @@ -593,7 +646,7 @@ get_defs (rtx_insn *insn, rtx reg, vec<rtx_insn *> > > *dest) > > > > return ref_chain; > > } > > - > > +#endif > > Why did you move get_defs? And we should not normally have #if 0, too. Segher
