On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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}).
Sure. Let's use ccodes then - or tcc_comparison (though I thought that was quite long). Well, the patch should be mostly about the new syntax of course. Richard. > > Jakub