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


On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Richard Biener
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Richard Biener
>> <richard.guenther@gmail.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
> builder.

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.


Diego.


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