Re: [PATCH 0/3] Compile-time gimple checking, without typedefs

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 05/02/14 15:56, David Malcolm wrote:
> This patch series demonstrates a way of reimplementing the 89-patch series:
>    "[PATCH 00/89] Compile-time gimple-checking"
>       http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01148.html
>
> whilst avoiding introducing a pair of "gimple_foo/const_gimple_foo" typedefs
> for each subclass.
>
> It eliminates the "gimple" and "const_gimple" typedefs,
> renaming "gimple_statement_base" to "gimple_stmt", giving types:
>    "gimple_stmt *" and "const gimple_stmt *"
> thoughout the middle-end.  The rest of the gimple statement classes are
> renamed, converting the various
>    gimple_statement_with_FOO
> to:
>    gimple_stmt_with_FOO
> and the remainder:
>    gimple_statement_SOME_SUBCLASS
> to just:
>    gimple_SOME_SUBCLASS
>
> The idea is then to reimplement the earlier patch series, porting many of
> these:
>    gimple_stmt *something
> to point to some more concrete subclass; I've done this for GIMPLE_SWITCH.
>
> It requires two patches that I've already posted separately:
>
>    (A): "[PATCH] gengtype: Support explicit pointers in template arguments":
>            http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00003.html
>         (which apparently will need reworking after wide-int is merged;
>          oh well).
So, wide-int has been merged, so time to get this patch dealt with.  As 
mentioned before, if it's just trivial changes, consider it 
pre-approved.  Else please get another review.  Obviously in both cases 
it needs to be posted to gcc-patches.

>    (B): "[PATCH 19/89] Const-correctness of gimple_call_builtin_p":
>            http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01194.html
>         (I have a separate bootstrap&regrtest in progress for just this one,
>          which appears to be pre-approved per Jeff's earlier comments).
Yes, this would meet the pre-approval criteria.  Just to be explicit, I 
approved it tonight anyway :-)

So it looks like Richi really wanted to keep the statements as "gimple" 
rather than gimple_stmt or somesuch.  So that presumably requires some 
reworking this patch series, but those should be strictly name changes, 
right?

jeff