On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 01:01:25AM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > > On 07/08/18 15:26, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > Since multi_users() is cheaper than nbr_users(), use > > the former when possible. > > > > Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > simplify.c | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/simplify.c b/simplify.c > > index 4dfcf198d..b9a32e232 100644 > > --- a/simplify.c > > +++ b/simplify.c > > @@ -751,7 +751,7 @@ static int simplify_seteq_setne(struct instruction *insn, long long value) > > // and same for setne/eq ... 0/1 > > return replace_pseudo(insn, &insn->src1, def->src); > > case OP_TRUNC: > > - if (nbr_users(old) > 1) > > + if (multi_users(old)) > > In a previous review I suggested naming this function > multiple_users() instead. When I read this patch, it > just reinforced my initial feeling about the name! ;-) Yes, indeed. I put this aspect aside and then I forgot it. > I can't claim to be very good at naming things, so please > take this with a large dose of salt! Oh, I think you're right but: * I prefer a short name * I suppose it depend a bit on how you read it: - this pseudo has multiple users - this pseudo is in the category 'multi-user(s)' In fact my initial intention was to use !single_user() but * people often prefer to avoid negation * it wouldn't reflect well the reality since the 3 possibilities are: - no users at all (but we're never interested in this case) - a single user - more than one user I don't know. I'm not very happy with the name myself. Maybe I should change slighty the semantic of ptr_list_multiple(), rename it ptr_list_single(), ptr_list_unique_entry() or something like this and use single_user(). -- Luc -- 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
