This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [cxx-conversion] Add Record Builder Class

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: Lawrence Crowl <crowl at google dot com>, nathan at codesourcery dot com, gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:56:17 -0500
Subject: Re: [cxx-conversion] Add Record Builder Class
References: <20130209065835.F0DCF12084A@jade.mtv.corp.google.com> <CAGqM8fY3g+NfCVNg=zY2VRZ2igeXaatPK+Gi9yktPVvEtmtvMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc2M5eSxfqyY_UueRw2=zm4CD=GqBLK+-GxOpi=MZsN19g@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Richard Biener
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:

> Note that tag_name does not allow the way C++ uses this (it can be
> a TYPE_DECL).
>
> Overall I'm not sure this is a good abstraction unless you manage to
> make the frontends use it.

I think that is a mistake.  This is a pure gimple facility.  The fact
that it now looks somewhat similar to what front ends do is a
consequence of the state of the gimple type system.

We very specifically do not want to cater to front ends here.  Why do
you think that should be a feature of this interface?

Diego.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [cxx-conversion] Add Record Builder Class
  - From: Richard Biener

References:
- [cxx-conversion] Add Record Builder Class
  - From: Lawrence Crowl
- Re: [cxx-conversion] Add Record Builder Class
  - From: Richard Biener

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]