Re: [PATCH 0/6] Conversion of gimple types to C++ inheritance (v3)

[Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>]

On 11/01/13 15:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 05:36:34PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>    static inline void
>> ! gimple_call_set_lhs (gimple gs, tree lhs)
>>    {
>> -   GIMPLE_CHECK (gs, GIMPLE_CALL);
>>      gimple_set_op (gs, 0, lhs);
>> to
>>      static inline void
>> ! gimple_call_set_lhs (gimple_statement_call *gs, tree lhs)
>>    {
>>      gimple_set_op (gs, 0, lhs);
>>
>>
>> but then every location that calls it needs an appropriate change:
>>
>> !       gimple call;
>> !       call = gimple_build_call_vec (build_fold_addr_expr_loc (0,
>> alias), vargs);
>>          gimple_call_set_lhs (call, atree);
>>
>> --- 1518,1524 ----
>>
>> !       gimple_statement_call *call;
>> !       call = as_a<gimple_statement_call> (gimple_build_call_vec
>> (build_fold_addr_expr_loc (0, alias), vargs));
>>          gimple_call_set_lhs (call, atree);
>>
>> And in fact there is a ripple effect to then change
>> gimple_build_call_vec to simply return a gimple_statement_call *...
>> Then this doesn't look as ugly either...
>>
>> !       gimple_statement_call *call;
>> !       call = gimple_build_call_vec (build_fold_addr_expr_loc (0,
>> alias), vargs);
>>          gimple_call_set_lhs (call, atree);
>>
>> that is looking much better :-)
>
> Do you seriously think this is an improvement?  The cost of changing
> the --enable-checking=yes cost to compile time checking in either
> cases sounds way too high to me.  Please don't.
?!?  One of the things we're reallying trying to do here is be type safe 
and use the type system to check for things at compile-time rather than 
runtime checks.

jeff