From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: Lawrence Crowl <crowl@google.com>,
nathan@codesourcery.com,
gcc-patches List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [cxx-conversion] Add Record Builder Class
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:41:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD_=9DTQar712=xC=o0cC=OHF550t00RC4wQFLVkBf=2Rv9rXw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc29OGPj9_3-2AT9aAdR1L7ZLCvA-999g8ZDQ7zkQ+rERA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Richard Biener
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Richard Biener
>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Because it's otherwise almost unused. No "usual" gimple pass builds
>>> up record types. What's the point in introducing the abstraction if
>>> most of the users cannot use it?
>>
>> There may be few users on the gimple side, but you are mixing two
>> orthogonal issues. Having a similar facility for FEs may be
>> desirable, but not *this* one.
>>
>> Perhaps we could have a parent class provide a more generalized set of
>> services. Each front end could use it or derive from it for its own
>> use. The gimple version could do the same. Could that work?
>
> They all share layout_type so they should be able to share the record
> builder.
That's why I was proposing a hierarchy. It's true that there is
shared behaviour we want, but I'm sure that there will be services
needed by FEs that are not required in gimple.
Diego.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-14 13:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20130209065835.F0DCF12084A@jade.mtv.corp.google.com>
2013-02-12 19:47 ` Lawrence Crowl
2013-02-13 19:42 ` Diego Novillo
2013-02-13 20:02 ` Lawrence Crowl
2013-02-13 20:08 ` Diego Novillo
2013-02-13 22:06 ` Lawrence Crowl
2013-02-14 9:26 ` Richard Biener
2013-02-14 11:56 ` Diego Novillo
2013-02-14 12:53 ` Richard Biener
2013-02-14 13:01 ` Diego Novillo
2013-02-14 13:07 ` Richard Biener
2013-02-14 13:41 ` Diego Novillo [this message]
2013-02-14 19:44 ` Lawrence Crowl
2013-02-15 9:04 ` Richard Biener
2013-02-15 14:21 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2013-02-18 9:02 ` Nathan Sidwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAD_=9DTQar712=xC=o0cC=OHF550t00RC4wQFLVkBf=2Rv9rXw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=dnovillo@google.com \
--cc=crowl@google.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=nathan@codesourcery.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).