This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 0/3] Compile-time gimple checking, without typedefs
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 21:53:49 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Compile-time gimple checking, without typedefs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <66f4112c-2a2f-4d2b-8f8e-d2011a7982f7 at email dot android dot com> <1399067771-11711-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc3D9XujxhxZnXYLtMCm2KejoLtKpRagg+hGoGfK0j5sVQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <5367B5E6 dot 7020209 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc0cfp-yKwQWi7Tjv=naHJhzJhkD0_nn7uFgonMW7T4EWA at mail dot gmail dot com> <5367EA06 dot 2080704 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 01:44:06PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/05/14 11:37, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >Well, I hope that Andrew doesn't do without a namespace (and I still
> >don't believe in what he tries to achieve without laying proper ground-work
> >throughout the compiler). With a namespace gimple we can use
> >gimple::stmt.
> namespaces, while nice, aren't going to solve all these issues.
> While I think we can get a good separation between gimple and the
> rest of the world, I suspect namespaces aren't going to help much
> with the statement vs expression vs type issues.
>
> Ultimately I suspect we're not going to have too many places where
> we can stick a "using namespace gimple-whatever", but time will
> tell.
>
> >Agreed on that, btw. But switch_ can't be the answer either. Maybe
> >swidch (similar do klass) or swjdch. Or swtch. I like swtch the best
> >(similar to stmt).
> As David pointed out there's several others that map to keywords.
> I'd rather set a standard here across the project so that we don't
> have folks using gto for goto, others using goto_, _goto, whatever.
> While swtch works well, I don't think the other examples work nearly
> as well. Thus some kind of prefix/suffix seems better to me (though
> I'm sure my eyes will bleed as a result of looking at those
> objects).
But the prefix can be as short as e.g. "g" (for gimple), so gtry, ggoto,
gassign, gcall.
Jakub