[PATCH] [Polly][Refactor] Cleanup runtime code generation

[Johannes Doerfert]

comment

================
Comment at: include/polly/CodeGen/Utils.h:31
@@ -35,1 +30,3 @@
+/// in the CFG. A branch statement decides which version is executed based on
+/// the runtime value of @p RTC.
 ///
----------------
grosser wrote:
> We already wasted too much time on this, if you feel strong about this, leave it as it is.
> 
> However, I still think we should use a more descriptive name instead of RTC. To explain you this is not just me not _liking_ your names, I cite the LLVM developer policy:
> 
> "Avoid abbreviations unless they are well known"
> 
> http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#name-types-functions-variables-and-enumerators-properly
> 
> In LLVM there are a couple of uses of RT to abbreviate run time, and in fact RTCheck or RTCondition is a lot clearer to me. Maybe that works for you as well.
> 
> 
> 
To much time,... indeed.

Wrt. "well know":
  https://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/doclib/iss/2013/compiler/cpp-lin/GUID-65F1FC0F-16CB-441E-8E38-3A49DED905F6.htm
  http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6kasb93x.aspx

I don't mind __you__ changing my variable names to whatever if you think that helps to understand the code or is otherwise contradicting the developer policy but I don't see it here. (Btw. there are other variable names not according to the policy, you could change those too.)

http://reviews.llvm.org/D5076