Re: [PATCH] Updated automated patch (was Re: [PATCH 3/6] Automated part of conversion of gimple types to use C++ inheritance)

[David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>]

On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 18:03 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/21/2013 05:42 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 03:24:55PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 11/21/13 15:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:25:52PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> >>>>> So is there some reason the GIMPLE_CHECK was left in here rather than
> >>>>> doing the downcasting?  This happens in other places.
> >>> Note that the changes removed tons of checks that IMHO were desirable.
> >>> The as_a that replaced those checks e.g. allows 3 different gimple codes,
> >>> while previously only one was allowed, this is both more expensive for
> >>> --enable-checking=yes, and allows one to use inline wrappers e.g.
> >>> gimple_omp_parallel_something on GIMPLE_OMP_TASK etc.
> >> Can you give a couple examples, please?
> > I mean e.g.
> > gimple_omp_parallel_{,set_}{clauses,child_fn,data_arg}{,_ptr}
> > gimple_omp_taskreg_{,set_}{clauses,child_fn,data_arg}{,_ptr}
> > gimple_omp_target_{,set_}{clauses,child_fn,data_arg}{,_ptr}
> > gimple_omp_teams_{,set_}clauses{,_ptr}
> > gimple_omp_return_{,set_}lhs{,_ptr}
> > gimple_omp_atomic_store_{,set_}val{,_ptr}
> > gimple_resx_{,set_}region
> > gimple_eh_dispatch_{,set_}region
> >
> > 	Jakub
> Why does  is_a_helper <gimple_statement_omp_parallel>::test allow 
> anything other than a GIMPLE_OMP_PARALLEL..?  That seems wrong to me. 
> should just be the one check.
> 
> gimple_omp_taskreg and other routines "sharing" that helper should have 
> their own helper and only check the one code.. thats is whole point to 
> remain at least codegen neutral in these cases and provide correct 
> checking.   The fact that they may happen to share the same underlying 
> structure is irrelevant.
> 
> I also think this is wrong.

This was a bug in my script.  Sorry.  Working on a fix.