Re: [PATCH] build: Rename as-insn-check to as-insn-add

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>]

>>> On 23.02.18 at 12:40, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 22/02/18 13:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 22.02.18 at 13:39, <george.dunlap@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/22/2018 12:22 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22.02.18 at 12:41, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 22/02/18 11:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22.02.18 at 11:51, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> as-insn-check mutates the passed-in flags.  Rename it to as-insn-add, in 
> line
>>>>>>> with cc-option-add.  Update all callers.
>>>>>> I'm not convinced - cc-option-add makes relatively clear that
>>>>>> something is being added to the options passed to CC. If I
>>>>>> take as-insn-add this way, the macro would need to add an
>>>>>> insn to the AS invocation. While I agree as-insn-check doesn't
>>>>>> make clear that it adds any options, I still find this less
>>>>>> misleading than the suggested new name. Let's see what
>>>>>> others think.
>>>>> I'm open to better name suggestions.
>>>> The best I can come up with is, well, as-insn-check, as that
>>>> reasonably describes at least part of what the construct does.
>>>> as-insn-check-and-add-option, besides being too long, isn't
>>>> meaningfully better.
>>> We're definitely getting into bikeshed territory here.
>> Indeed, but I think a change in name should be an improvement,
>> not going from one questionable name to another questionable
>> one.
>>
>>>  I agree with
>>> Andy that 'check' doesn't really convey that something changed.  Is the
>>> check-and-add "add it if it doesn't exist already"?  Or add it if some
>>> other check passes / fails?
>> It is "check if this piece of assembly assembles and add the
>> provided option to the indicated variable", extended by Roger's
>> patch to "..., and add the other provided option if it doesn't
>> assemble".
> 
> Ok - how do we unblock this?
> 
> There appears to be agreement that as-insn-check isn't a great name, and
> my proposed as-insn-add isn't much better.
> 
> The base runes of as-insn and cc-option are compatible.  They check the
> fragment, and yield one of two options.  cc-option-add and as-insn-check
> are built on top of the base runes, and mutate the flags passed in.
> 
> as-check-frag-update-option ?

as-insn-option-add? Or just as-option-add, considering Roger's
new use cases which don't check insns?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel