Re: Simplifying Gimple Generation

[Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > The method name should imply the action, e.g. 'add_stmt' or append_stmt
>> > or the like.
>>
>> strongly agreed.
>> [...]
>>
>> > All in all I think we can severely improve on building gimple statements
>> > without introduction of any helper class.  Basically, whenever a helper
>> > class merely contains one member of a different type, then I think that
>> > other type should be improved so that the wrapper class isn't necessary
>> > anymore.  Fewer types -> good :)
>>
>> no, it is the opposite.  Distinct abstractions should be materialized
>
> But the proposed improvements aren't distinct abstractions at all, they
> are interface cleanups and idiom shortenings.  That's my point, those
> improvements should be made to the interface of the gimple type, so that
> working with that one becomes nicer, instead of adding an
> abstractiong with which working is easier than with gimple directly.
>
> It's not that our gimple interface is cast in stone so that we have to
> wrap it to improve it.  We can _directly_ improve it.

Without examples to show otherwise, I tend to agree with your point.

David


>
>> by distinct types.  => less opportunities for bugs.
>
>
> Ciao,
> Michael.