On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: >> On 12-05-20 13:59 , Richard Henderson wrote: >>> >>> On 05/18/2012 04:48 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: >>>> >>>> We can do this in trunk today using a variant of Lawrence's original >>>> patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01649.html). This >>>> uses no C++ features, though it weakens type checking by removing away >>>> constness. >>>> >>>> In the cxx-conversion branch, we can use overloads, which will DTRT >>>> with const. >>>> >>>> My question is, what do folks prefer? >>>> >>>> a) The trunk patch today, using no C++ features. >>>> b) Wait for the cxx-conversion variant? >>> >>> >>> Surely (check(t), t) also works, and also strt wrt const. >> >> >> My concern with (check(t), t) is that it evaluates 't' twice. It may not be >> a big deal, however. In which case, I'm OK with that alternative. > > Hum. A source of possibly nasty errors. > > I'd like to avoid using templates here though. Going with two overloads > for each function sounds like the best solution to me, thus delay the > change to cxx-switch time. > > What's the effect on bootstrap times? Remember we build stage1 with -O0 > and checking enabled always ...
Btw, as of doing this all for the sake of debuggability of GCC - for debugging you do _not_ want to have gdb invoke the checking functions, because then you ICE in the inferior if you mis-type. Instead ideally gdb would use the non-checking variant or even better, diagnose misuse itself (which means using a python implementation rather than the gcc macro or an inferior call). So - why not provide proper (python) implementations of the various accessors in .gdbinit? Richard. > Richard. > >> >> Diego. >>
