From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7464 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2013 22:43:49 -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 7452 invoked by uid 89); 7 Nov 2013 22:43:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPAM_SUBJECT,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com Received: from Unknown (HELO emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (213.199.154.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 22:43:47 +0000 Received: from DB3PRD0111HT003.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.255.186.36) by DB4PR01MB207.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.242.157.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.815.6; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 22:43:37 +0000 Received: from [172.29.30.106] (137.205.238.227) by pod51002.outlook.com (10.255.186.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.371.2; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 22:43:37 +0000 Message-ID: <527C1795.1030104@warwick.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 00:07:00 -0000 From: Alec Teal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Matz CC: David Malcolm , Andrew MacLeod , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add gimple subclasses for every gimple code (was 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> <1383671947.5282.93.camel@surprise> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Forefront-PRVS: 00235A1EEF X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(479174003)(51704005)(199002)(189002)(24454002)(85306002)(64126003)(63696002)(47776003)(4396001)(47736001)(74706001)(46102001)(74482001)(54356001)(23756003)(51856001)(53806001)(81342001)(47976001)(74502001)(87936001)(47446002)(74876001)(50986001)(80976001)(83506001)(50466002)(19580395003)(49866001)(83322001)(56776001)(59896001)(59766001)(77982001)(79102001)(80316001)(69226001)(31966008)(76786001)(76796001)(74366001)(81542001)(81686001)(76482001)(66066001)(56816003)(65806001)(33656001)(83072001)(74662001)(80022001)(54316002)(81816001)(65956001)(36756003)(218113001);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:DB4PR01MB207;H:DB3PRD0111HT003.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com;CLIP:137.205.238.227;FPR:;RD:InfoNoRecords;A:1;MX:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: warwick.ac.uk X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00846.txt.bz2 Hello On 06/11/13 15:32, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, David Malcolm wrote: > >> Here's a followup patch which ensures that every gimple code has its own >> subclass, by adding empty subclasses derived from the GSS_-based >> subclasses as appropriate (I don't bother for gimple codes that already >> have their own subclass due to having their own GSS layout). I also >> copied the comments from gimple.def into gimple.h, so that Doxygen picks >> up on the descriptions and uses them to describe each subclass. > I don't like that. The empty classes are just useless, they imply a > structure that isn't really there, some of the separate gimple codes are > basically selectors of specific subtypes of a generic concept, without > additional data or methods; creating a type for those is confusing. > > Generally I don't like complicating the type system without good reasons > (as in actually also making use of the complicated types). The fewer > types the better IMO. How would you do this? The types are different even if there is no actual difference, much like there are different gimple codes in the first place. He is trying to create a bijection between what we did have and what we now have so nothing breaks. > > > Ciao, > Michael.