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


On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2013, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I thought the principle that was acquired was that gengtype shouldn't
>> >> be improved to support more than what it does now….
>> >
>> > If it means that we'll need to write and maintain tons of hand written code
>> > that could otherwise be generated and maintained by a tool for us, that
>> > principle doesn't look very good.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> Back in March 2013, I asked about gengtype support for inheritance.
>>    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-03/msg00273.html
>> This
>>    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-03/msg00295.html
>> was the definitive answer that appeared to be the consensus.
>
> Well, it was a wrong decision then.  For some smaller types writing manual
> marker might be a sensible thing, or for some extra complicated
> constructs.  But here we're talking about the most simple struct hierarchy
> imaginable.  Having to write manual markers for that one is absurd IMO.

We can reserve the emotional strong words for later.  For now, the focus
should be for us to ensure we are being consistent and making design
decisions that carry consensus, hence my original note.

-- Gaby


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