On 04/22/2014 01:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 09:05 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Of course, it would be ideal if we could use 'gimple' as the namespace,
but that is currently taken by the gimple statement type... I'd even go
so far as to propose that 'gimple' should be renamed 'gimple::stmt'..
but that is much more work :-)
I'm not at all keen on that further suggestion: I wanted to make this
patch series as minimal as possible whilst giving us the compile-time
tracking of gimple codes. Although people's inboxes may find this
surprising, I was trying to be conservative with the patch series :) [1]
I wasn't suggesting you do it in this patch set... It would clearly be
its own patch set, and doesn't even need to be done by you. Merely
bringing up the option for future consideration since I'd like to see
the generic 'gimple' name re-purposed :-)
We're both working on large changes that improve the type-safety of the
middle-end: this patch series affects statements, whereas AIUI you have
a branch working on expressions and types. How do we best co-ordinate
this so that we don't bitrot each other's work, so that the result is
reviewable, and the changes are understandable in, say, 5 years time?
My plan was to do the statement work as a (large) series of small
patches against trunk, trying to minimize the number of lines I touch,
mostly function and variable decls with a few lines adding is_a and
dyn_cast, whereas your change AIUI by necessity involves more
substantial changes to function bodies. I think we can only have zero
or one such "touch every line" change(s) landing at once.
Dave
I don't think you should worry about bit-rotting other in-progress
branches when making these decisions...at least not mine.. I think you
should "do the right thing", whatever that turns out to be :-)
My stuff wont land as a "touch every line" change through the source
base. its designed to fully convert a file at a time and transparently
coexist with the existing tree interface... Impact on other files is
minimal. Plus I expect it will go through at least one more massive
round of changes after I finish documenting it and bring it forth for
discussions in the coming month(s). So it'll be all bit-rotted then
anyway.
Andrew
