Hi! On Don, 2010-11-04 at 17:57 -0700, Christopher Li wrote: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Voila. > > - struct basic_block *true = br->bb_true; > - struct basic_block *false = br->bb_false; > - br->bb_false = true; > - br->bb_true = false; > + struct basic_block *true_expr = br->bb_true; > + struct basic_block *false_expr = br->bb_false; > + br->bb_false = true_expr; > + br->bb_true = false_expr; > > Hmm, not very "true" symbol is an expression type. You end up calling > basicl_block pointer as true_expr, that is misleading. > Same thing happen to pseudo_t pointers. Frankly, I don't understand what you mean (especially with the pseudo_t) - which also explains why the suboptimal variable naming and I cannot come up with a better name. > Looks fine otherwise. Bernd -- mobile: +43 664 4416156 http://www.sysprog.at/ Linux Software Development, Consulting and Services -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
