From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19040 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2013 18:20:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19031 invoked by uid 89); 5 Nov 2013 18:20:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:19:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA5IJ54S010800 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:19:06 -0500 Received: from [10.10.54.165] (vpn-54-165.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.54.165]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA5IJ4sd030733; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:19:04 -0500 Message-ID: <52793698.7080502@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:22:00 -0000 From: Andrew MacLeod User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Malcolm CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Richard Biener , Jeff Law , Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Conversion of gimple types to C++ inheritance (v3) References: <5271CBF9.2070005@redhat.com> <1383236801-13234-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <52741EE2.3030100@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <52741EE2.3030100@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00449.txt.bz2 On 11/01/2013 05:36 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > On 10/31/2013 12:26 PM, David Malcolm wrote: >> [Shamelessly hijacking Andrew's thread about gimple.h refactoring, >> since this seems on-topic for that, and I'm keen to hear from Andrew on >> how the following would interact with his work - I *think* our two >> cleanups are orthogonal. > <...> > > That all said, this change enables that work to proceed if someone > wants to do it. > > My question is: Is anyone going to do it, and if so, who and when? :-) So in case the waters have gotten muddy... I am not resisting this patch for 4.9... I think its a reasonable cleanup and was pointing out another way it could be useful down the road.. I'd be happy to see some form of it go in. Andrew