llvm dev - Jul 2007 - [LLVMdev] API design

> > I'd like to get the extra checks working so that they can help
find our
> > more subtle bugs. Any idea what we should do here?
>
> I don't really have a good idea, but I also don't want to
significantly
> uglify the sourcebase...
#define V_CALLINST(V, Args) new CallInst(V, Args.size() == 0 ? NULL :
&Args[0], Args.size())

:p

-Keith

On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 09:04 +1200, Keith Bauer wrote:
> > > I'd like to get the extra checks working so that they can
help find our
> > > more subtle bugs. Any idea what we should do here?
> >
> > I don't really have a good idea, but I also don't want to
significantly
> > uglify the sourcebase...
> 
> #define V_CALLINST(V, Args) new CallInst(V, Args.size() == 0 ? NULL :
> &Args[0], Args.size())
I'd actually prefer a new constructor here. One that doesn't take any
Args at all. API wise its a little more clear what's going on, so you'd
have:

if (Args.size())
  new CallInst(V, &Args[0], Args.size());
else
  new CallInst(V);

Or any other permutation using ternary operator and/or macros.

Reid.
> 
> :p
> 
> -Keith
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Reid Spencer wrote:
> I'd actually prefer a new constructor here. One that doesn't take
any
> Args at all. API wise its a little more clear what's going on, so
you'd
> have:
>
> if (Args.size())
>  new CallInst(V, &Args[0], Args.size());
> else
>  new CallInst(V);
>
> Or any other permutation using ternary operator and/or macros.
The point is to not have conditional code.

-Chris

-- 
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/