[cxx-conversion] Add Record Builder Class
Thu Feb 14 12:53:00 GMT 2013
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Diego Novillo <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Richard Biener
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Note that tag_name does not allow the way C++ uses this (it can be
>> a TYPE_DECL).
>> Overall I'm not sure this is a good abstraction unless you manage to
>> make the frontends use it.
> I think that is a mistake. This is a pure gimple facility. The fact
> that it now looks somewhat similar to what front ends do is a
> consequence of the state of the gimple type system.
> We very specifically do not want to cater to front ends here. Why do
> you think that should be a feature of this interface?
Because it's otherwise almost unused. No "usual" gimple pass builds
up record types. What's the point in introducing the abstraction if
most of the users cannot use it?
More information about the Gcc-patches