Hi, On Mon, 21 Apr 2014, David Malcolm wrote:
> This is a greatly-expanded version of: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg01262.html > > As of r205034 (de6bd75e3c9bc1efe8a6387d48eedaa4dafe622d) and > r205428 (a90353203da18288cdac1b0b78fe7b22c69fe63f) the various gimple > statements form a C++ inheritance hierarchy, but we're not yet making much > use of that in the code: everything refers to just "gimple" (or > "const_gimple"), and type-checking is performed at run-time within the > various gimple_foo_* accessors in gimple.h, and almost nowhere else. > > The following patch series introduces compile-time checking of much of > the handling of gimple statements. FWIW, I still don't like any of this for reasons already outlined here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg00773.html (basically: I consider automatically creating types a very bad idea. You do do that by simply creating a type for every gimple code.) > case GIMPLE_SWITCH: > dump_gimple_switch (buffer, gs->as_a_gimple_switch (), spc, flags); > break; > > where the ->as_a_gimple_switch is a no-op cast from "gimple" to the more > concrete "gimple_switch" in a release build, with runtime checking for > code == GIMPLE_SWITCH added in a checked build (it uses as_a <> > internally). Unlike others here I do like the cast-as-method (if we absolutely _must_ have a complicated type hierarchy for gimple), but would suggest different a name: the "gimple_" is tautological, and the "a_" just noise, just name it "gs->as_switch()" (incidentally then it's _really_ shorter than the ugly is_a/as_a syntax). Ciao, Michael.
