This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Updated automated patch (was Re: [PATCH 3/6] Automated part of conversion of gimple types to use C++ inheritance)
- From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:03:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Updated automated patch (was Re: [PATCH 3/6] Automated part of conversion of gimple types to use C++ inheritance)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5271CBF9 dot 2070005 at redhat dot com> <1383236801-13234-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <1383236801-13234-4-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <5284806A dot 2050607 at redhat dot com> <1384806352 dot 11568 dot 80 dot camel at surprise> <20131121221933 dot GQ892 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <528E8837 dot 5080300 at redhat dot com> <20131121224257 dot GR892 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On 11/21/2013 05:42 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Why does is_a_helper <gimple_statement_omp_parallel>::test allow
anything other than a GIMPLE_OMP_PARALLEL..? That seems wrong to me.
should just be the one check.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 03:24:55PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/21/13 15:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:25:52PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
So is there some reason the GIMPLE_CHECK was left in here rather than
doing the downcasting? This happens in other places.
Note that the changes removed tons of checks that IMHO were desirable.
The as_a that replaced those checks e.g. allows 3 different gimple codes,
while previously only one was allowed, this is both more expensive for
--enable-checking=yes, and allows one to use inline wrappers e.g.
gimple_omp_parallel_something on GIMPLE_OMP_TASK etc.
Can you give a couple examples, please?
I mean e.g.
gimple_omp_taskreg and other routines "sharing" that helper should have
their own helper and only check the one code.. thats is whole point to
remain at least codegen neutral in these cases and provide correct
checking. The fact that they may happen to share the same underlying
structure is irrelevant.
I also think this is wrong.