From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 745 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2013 20:57:49 -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 734 invoked by uid 89); 6 Nov 2013 20:57:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.2 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; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:57:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA6Kvdtl031857 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:57:39 -0500 Received: from stumpy.slc.redhat.com (ovpn-113-132.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.132]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA6Kvc1N010099; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:57:38 -0500 Message-ID: <527AAD42.9000902@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 21:09:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakub Jelinek , Richard Biener CC: Bernd Schmidt , David Malcolm , GCC Patches , Andrew MacLeod 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> <527960A8.7030107@redhat.com> <527A21DB.301@codesourcery.com> <20131106114253.GY27813@tucnak.zalov.cz> In-Reply-To: <20131106114253.GY27813@tucnak.zalov.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00650.txt.bz2 On 11/06/13 04:42, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:31:00PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >>> Maybe we need to revisit it? As one of those who were not in favour of >>> the C++ move, can I ask you guys to step back for a moment and think >>> about - what do all of these changes buy us, exactly? Imagine the state >>> at the end, where everything is converted and supposedly the temporary >>> ugliness is gone, what have we gained over the code as it is now? >> >> as_a gains us less runtime checking and more static type checking >> which is good. > > But that really affects --enable-checking=yes builds (and only cases where > things aren't inlined). If the price for that is uglier and less readable > code, then the price is just too high. I totally disagree. Getting to a better static typed system is good. All the tree/rtl checking bits are really working around the sad fact that we don't have a statically typed system. The checking stuff has been a big help to ensure we're not doing something stupid. But those problems really need to be caught at compile time, not a runtime. jeff