Hi, On Sat, 29 Mar 2014, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote:
It's not better to have two different functions/entry points, one for when we have/need a CValue and other without it ?
Yes, that could be reasonable. OTOH to avoid code duplication the one without taking a CValue would be internally calling the one with a CValue (passing it a local faked one). (Or alternatively both would call an internal helper that expects one) And at that point I don't see much value in enlarging the API more, seeing a "NULL" in place of the CValue is equally clear to me like seeing a "_nocval" suffix on the function call name, but that's just IMHO.
Ciao, Michael. _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel