"gimple-classes-v2-option-3" git branch committed to svn trunk as r217787

[Richard Biener]

On November 19, 2014 8:26:23 PM CET, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
>On 11/19/2014 01:12 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
>>
>> (A) could become:
>>
>>    greturn *stmt = gsi->as_a_greturn ();
>>
>> (B) could become:
>>
>>    stmt = gsi->dyn_cast <gcall *> ();
>>    if (!stmt)
>
>> or:
>>
>>    stmt = gsi->dyn_cast_gcall ();
>>    if (!stmt)
>>
>> or maybe:
>>
>>    stmt = gsi->is_a_gcall ();
>>    if (!stmt)
>>
>> An earlier version of my patches had casting methods within the
>> gimple_statement_base class, which were rejected; the above proposals
>> would instead put them within gimple_stmt_iterator.
>>
>I would like all gsi routines to be consistent, not a mix of functions 
>and methods.
>so something like
>
>stmt = gsi_as_call (gsi);
>stmt = gsi_dyn_call (gsi);
>
>or we need to change gsi_stmt() and friends into methods and access
>them 
>as gsi->stmt ()..  which is possibly better, but that much more 
>intrusive again (another 2000+ locations).
>If we switched to methods everywhere for gsi, I'd prefer something like
>gsi->as_a_call ()
>gsi->is_a_call ()
>gsi->dyn_cast_call ()
>
>I think its more readable... and it removes a dependency on the 
>implementation.. so if we ever decide to change the name of 'gcall'
>down 
>the road to using a namespace, and make it gimple::call or whatever, we
>
>wont have to change every single gsi-> location which has a templated 
>use of the type.
>
>I'm also think this sort of thing could probably wait until next stage
>1..
>
>my 2 cents...

Why not as_a <gassign *> (*gsi)?  It would
Add operator* to gsi of course.

Richard.

>Andrew