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] |
On 04/23/2014 10:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
I was also wondering if we shouldn't be able to get rid of the 'const_' versions and just properly use const with the c++ classes.On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:On April 22, 2014 8:56:56 PM CEST, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> writes:Alternatively we could change the is-a.h API to eliminate this discrepancy, and keep the typedefs; giving something like thefollowing:static void dump_gimple_switch (pretty_printer *buffer, gimple_switch gs, intspc,int flags) [...snip...] [...later, within pp_gimple_stmt_1:] case GIMPLE_SWITCH: dump_gimple_switch (buffer, as_a <gimple_switch> (gs), spc,flags);break; which is concise, readable, and avoid the change in pointernesscomparedto the "gimple" typedef; the local decls above would look like this: gimple some_stmt; /* note how this doesn't have a star... */ gimple_assign assign_stmt; /* ...and neither do these */ gimple_cond assign_stmt; gimple_phi phi; I think this last proposal is my preferred API, but it requires the change to is-a.h Attached is a proposed change to the is-a.h API that elimintates the discrepancy, allowing the use of typedefs with is-a.h (doesn't yet compile, but hopefully illustrates the idea). Note how it changestheAPI to match C++'s dynamic_cast<> operator i.e. you do Q* q = dyn_cast<Q*> (p); not: Q* q = dyn_cast<Q> (p);Thanks for being flexible. :-) I like this version too FWIW, for the reason you said: it really does look like a proper C++ cast.Indeed. I even wasn't aware it is different Than a c++ cast...It would be nice if you can change that with a separate patch posted in a separate thread to be more visible. Also I see you introduce a const_FOO class with every FOO one. I wonder whether, now that we have C++, can address const-correctness in a less awkward way than with a typedef. Can you try to go back in time and see why we did with that in the first place? ISTR that it was "oh, if we were only using C++ we wouldn't need to jump through that hoop".
I think we can... Andrew
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |