From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30859 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2013 14:34:00 -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 30847 invoked by uid 89); 7 Nov 2013 14:34:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,RDNS_NONE,SPAM_SUBJECT,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wg0-f41.google.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-wg0-f41.google.com) (74.125.82.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:33:55 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id b13so514859wgh.2 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 06:33:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.90.116 with SMTP id bv20mr3005307wib.50.1383834826773; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 06:33:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.195.12.114 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:33:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <5271CBF9.2070005@redhat.com> <1383236801-13234-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <527960A8.7030107@redhat.com> <527A21DB.301@codesourcery.com> <527AACE6.3040005@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Conversion of gimple types to C++ inheritance (v3) From: Richard Biener To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Andrew MacLeod , Bernd Schmidt , Jeff Law , David Malcolm , GCC Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00772.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote: > >> Well, I'm betting that you'll re-invent sth like 'tree' just don't >> call it 'tree' ;) >> You need to transparently refer to constants, SSA names and decls >> (at least) as GIMPLE statement operands. You probably will make >> a "gimple statement operand" base class. Well - that's a 'tree' ;) > > Uses of constants and decls in expressions are why it's not obvious that > those get a static type different from expressions (or at least, they > probably do need a common base class). But my model of how "tree" should > ideally be split up has expressions (maybe including decls) as a > completely separate static type from types, and identifiers as yet another > static type, none of those inheriting from a common base class "tree". Sure. Also you make containers no longer trees (TREE_CHAIN anyone, TREE_VEC, TREE_LIST ...). Should be the first step I think (already started some time ago with using VECs for some pieces). Richard. > -- > Joseph S. Myers > joseph@codesourcery.com