On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@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. Richard. > > Diego.
