On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> > *) gcc implementation has lots of hard coded TREE_OPERAND (exp, nn) >> > >> > e.g. >> > exp->as_component_ref().get_field() .. >> > exp->as_mem_access().get_base() ... >> > exp->as_mem_acesss().get_address() --> produces the >> > address expression for memory access >> > exp->as_mem_access().get_alias_handle () >> > >> > gimple_inst->serialize (&fixup_list) --> a virtual >> > function overriden by actual instruction types that knows its byte >> > code format. >> >> That silently assumes we want to change basic GIMPLE/tree data structures >> to virtual classes, which is a significant change that has a significant >> cost as well. E.g. all such changed data structures grow by a virtual >> pointer field. Those data structures are heavily optimized for memory >> footprint. >> Not to mention it is very questionable if the above stuff is more readable >> than what we currently have. > > Actually it's not questionable. The above stuff is _horrible_. >
Specifics please. It is _horrible_ because you are more used to the existing way and the new style does not match your taste or they are very hard to understand and use? David > > Ciao, > Michael.
