[PATCH 00/89] Compile-time gimple-checking

[Jeff Law]

On 04/23/14 08:32, Richard Biener wrote:

>> Also I see you introduce a const_FOO class with every FOO one.
>> I wonder whether, now that we have C++, can address const-correctness
>> in a less awkward way than with a typedef.  Can you try to go back
>> in time and see why we did with that in the first place?  ISTR that
>> it was "oh, if we were only using C++ we wouldn't need to jump through
>> that hoop".
>
> To followup myself here, it's because 'tree' is a typedef to a pointer
> and thus 'const tree' is different from 'const tree_node *'.
Right.

>
> Not sure why we re-introduced the 'mistake' of making 'tree' a pointer
> when we introduced 'gimple'.  If we were to make 'gimple' the class
> type itself we can use gimple *, const gimple * and also const gimple &
> (when a NULL pointer is not expected).
It wasn't ever really discussed to the best of my recollection.

>
> Anyway, gazillion new typedefs are ugly :/  (typedefs are ugly)
Yea, can't argue with that.  However, do we want to ask David to fix up 
the gimple vs gimple * vs const gimple * vs const gimple & as a 
prerequisite for this patchset or are you comfortable going forward with 
the patchset, then researching if there's a cleaner way to handle the 
const/typedef issues?

jeff