Simplify some RTLIL destructors #2755
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
zachjs
reviewed
May 14, 2021
kernel/rtlil.cc
Outdated
| delete n; | ||
| for (auto &pr : modules_) delete pr.second; | ||
| for (auto n : verilog_packages) delete n; | ||
| for (auto n : verilog_globals) delete n; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is outside my main area, but I'm guessing the general preference would be to preserve the existing style of putting the body on its own line. I agree the range syntax (where possible) is superior, but the spacing is a matter of opinion, and the least chaotic move there would be to stick to the existing precedent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, ok. I've put the newlines back in. As you say, this simplifies the change (although the renaming means we still get diffs for all the lines, sadly).
No change in behaviour, but use range-based for loops instead of iterators.
zachjs
approved these changes
Jun 14, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No change in behaviour, but use range-based for loops instead of
iterators.
(Note: This patch is part of the larger queue at #2752. The idea is to split things out to avoid having a giant PR to review all at once)