Re: [PATCH 1/6] Convert gimple types from a union to C++ inheritance

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 11/18/13 14:00, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > @@ -269,10 +269,10 @@ ggc_alloc_cleared_tree_node_stat (size_t s MEM_STAT_DECL)
> > >      return (union tree_node *) ggc_internal_cleared_alloc_stat (s PASS_MEM_STAT);
> > >    }
> > >
> > > -static inline union gimple_statement_d *
> > > -ggc_alloc_cleared_gimple_statement_d_stat (size_t s MEM_STAT_DECL)
> > > +static inline struct gimple_statement_base *
> > > +ggc_alloc_cleared_gimple_statement_stat (size_t s MEM_STAT_DECL)
> > >    {
> > > -  return (union gimple_statement_d *)
> > > +  return (struct gimple_statement_base *)
> > >        ggc_internal_cleared_alloc_stat (s PASS_MEM_STAT);
> > >    }
> > Didn't I see something in the last 48hrs indicating that we don't need
> > "static inline" anymore, just "inline"?  If so, can you drop the static
> > here since you're changing it already.
> I looked, but I'm not sure which change you're referring to; sorry.
>
> Note that all 7 of the inline functions in ggc.h are "static inline",
> not just this one; it feels like a separate change to be touching the
> "static"ness of them IMHO.
Don't stress about it.  If I find the reference, I'll pass it along 
and/or just fix them myself :-)

> Thanks.  It's now been a few days.  Patch 3 (the autogenerated one) has
> bitrotted somewhat due to the reorganization of gimple.h, so I'm
> rebootstrapping an updated version of it now; I've posted it for review
> as http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02156.html
I'll give it another look shortly.

jeff