On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:55:43PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 09/05/14 16:38, Trevor Saunders wrote: > > > >So, in this case it seems to me you basically have two options > > > >A. change the macro to an inline function, and fix up all the callers to > >pass the right type. Then rebase that into some sort of reasonable > >patch series. > > > >b. add a function with a different name and convert users piece meal, > >and then remove the old macro (I guess you can then rename the new > >function to the old macro if you like). > > > >of those I prefer b because it means you can convert call sites one at a > >time and its easy to know which have been delt with. > My worry with piecemeal is obviously an incomplete transition. While we > have that to some extent with David's patches, we don't generally have two > ways to get at the same hunk of data.
yeah, I'd expect there's enough incentive for conversions to be finished, but really I should probably know better ;) fortunately I have a patch that just needs a ChangeLog finishing the conversion of INSN_DELETED_P (though to a member function). LABEL_NUSES is harder in large part due to JUMP_LABEL, so that will probably have to wait. > >I also do think the advantages of using members outways the cost. > I don't think it's always the case, but my general preference will be to go > to member functions. > > > > > >For one thing functions with all caps names are just weird. I think the > >more important reason though is that it will help make rtx_insn be a > >separate class sometime in the far future, since at some point we can > >make its inheritance from rtx_def protected to chase down things that > >try to convert from rtx_insn to rtx. There's also the argument that its > >inconsistant to have some things be members and others be functions. > Yes, the all caps is weird. There was a time when the all caps designated > that we were using a macro and it was expected to be very efficient. When > calling a function we were supposed to use lowercase to signify the likely > high overhead. I actually care because if I suspect its a macro I'm going to grep for 'define XXX' and if its a function '^xxx', but I guess I should just remember to use ctags :p > I'd tend to lean towards #1. If we want to convert to methods, I think that > can be a follow-up. Type safety is my focus right now, not pushing towards > member functions. yeah, if you don't want to change things incrementally I think there's less incentive to change this at the same time. Trev > > Jeff
