This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 0/6] Convert gimple to a C++ class hierarchy
- From: Martin Jambor <mjambor at suse dot cz>
- To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 14:35:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Convert gimple to a C++ class hierarchy
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1377793216-22549-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1308301532490 dot 9949 at wotan dot suse dot de> <1377890482 dot 29222 dot 32 dot camel at surprise>
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 03:21:22PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> Apart from the GTY aspect, how do people feel about the patch series?
> FWIW I have vague thoughts about doing something similar for tree -
> doing so *might* give an easier route to the type vs expression
> separation that Andrew spoke about at the Cauldron rearchitecture BoF.
> (I started looking at doing a similar C++-ification of rtx, but...
I like it but before you start looking at the biger things, could you
perhpas proceed with the symtab? It has much fewer classes, will
probably affect private development of fewer people, the accessor
macros/functions of symtab are less developed so it will immediately
really make code nicer, Honza has approved it and I'm really looking
forward to it. Also, perhaps it will show us at much saller scale
potential problems with the general scheme.
I'm only writing this because the development there seems a bit
stalled and it it a shame. Of course, you ay want to simplify the
manual markings first. I'd perfectly understand that.