Re: [PATCH 0/6] Convert gimple to a C++ class hierarchy

[David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 14:35 +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 03:21:22PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > Apart from the GTY aspect, how do people feel about the patch series?
> > FWIW I have vague thoughts about doing something similar for tree -
> > doing so *might* give an easier route to the type vs expression
> > separation that Andrew spoke about at the Cauldron rearchitecture BoF.
> > (I started looking at doing a similar C++-ification of rtx, but...
> > gahhhhh)
> > 
> 
> I like it but before you start looking at the biger things, could you
> perhpas proceed with the symtab?  It has much fewer classes, will
> probably affect private development of fewer people, the accessor
> macros/functions of symtab are less developed so it will immediately
> really make code nicer, Honza has approved it and I'm really looking
> forward to it.  Also, perhaps it will show us at much saller scale
> potential problems with the general scheme.

Sorry about the delay.  I wasn't aware that it had been approved; there
seemed to be a lot of caveats and objections in that thread.  On
re-reading, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg01147.html
could be seen as approval, but I guess I was making a conservative
reading of that post.  I hope to refresh the patches and
reboostrap/repost them at some point this week.

> I'm only writing this because the development there seems a bit
> stalled and it it a shame.  Of course, you ay want to simplify the
> manual markings first.  I'd perfectly understand that.

I've been poking at gengtype (and running benchmarks; see other post),
which would affect the symtab patch, though it's something of a
quagmire...