On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 04:46:43PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 06:26:12PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> --- gcc/match-comparison.pd (revision 216916)
> >> +++ gcc/match-comparison.pd (working copy)
> >> @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
> >> /* From fold_binary. */
> >>
> >> +(define_operator_list eq_ops eq ne)
> >> +(define_operator_list cc eq_ops lt le gt ge)
> >
> > I think cc is a bad name for the macro, that usually stands for condition
> > code register.
>
> OTOH it is a perfect match for 'condition code'.
So eqcodes and ccodes, or comp_code, ... ?
Saving a few keystrokes there can be a problem for readability.
Not to mention that there are various other tcc_comparison codes (lggt,
unordered, ordered, un{lt,le,gt,ge,eq}).
Jakub
