This is the mail archive of the 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] Conversion of gimple types to C++ inheritance (v3)

On 11/06/2013 10:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> We decided to move to C++.  As part of a later discussion we decided
> to go with a single general dynamic-casting style, mimicing the "real"
> C++ variant which is dynamic_cast < ... >.  Which resulted in
> is-a.h.
> So yes, we've decided to go C++ so we have to live with certain
> uglinesses of that decisions (and maybe over time those uglinesses
> will fade away and we get used to it and like it).
> Thus, there isn't another option besides using the is-a.h machinery
> and enabling and using RTTI.  Sticking to C for gimple doesn't seem
> to be consistent with the decision to move to C++.
> Oh, I'm not saying I'm a big fan of as_a / is_a or C++ in general
> as it plays out right now.  But well, we've had the discussion and
> had a decision.

Maybe we need to revisit it? As one of those who were not in favour of
the C++ move, can I ask you guys to step back for a moment and think
about - what do all of these changes buy us, exactly? Imagine the state
at the end, where everything is converted and supposedly the temporary
ugliness is gone, what have we gained over the code as it is now?

I still think all this effort is misdirected and distracts us from
making changes that improve gcc for its users.


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