This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [cxx-conversion] Add Record Builder Class
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Richard Biener
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Diego Novillo <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Richard Biener
>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Because it's otherwise almost unused. No "usual" gimple pass builds
>>> up record types. What's the point in introducing the abstraction if
>>> most of the users cannot use it?
>> There may be few users on the gimple side, but you are mixing two
>> orthogonal issues. Having a similar facility for FEs may be
>> desirable, but not *this* one.
>> Perhaps we could have a parent class provide a more generalized set of
>> services. Each front end could use it or derive from it for its own
>> use. The gimple version could do the same. Could that work?
> They all share layout_type so they should be able to share the record
That's why I was proposing a hierarchy. It's true that there is
shared behaviour we want, but I'm sure that there will be services
needed by FEs that are not required in gimple.