On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 08:31:28AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > True, but they could be. When David was working in this space a few > years ago I concluded that the main value in sub-classing the various > RTL operators just wansn't worth the effort. Instead we focused on > starting to tear apart things like the toplevel objects into rtx_insn > and the like. THere's little value in treating those as simple RTXs. > INSN_LIST and the like were also ripe for this treatment. > > The biggest value in making a real class for the operators things would > be to move the runtime RTL checking into a compile-time check. But I > couldn't really green light something like that without first completing > the rtx_insn changes.
Are there any notes or old discussion threads on what remains? I would be interested in taking a look if no-one else is. Thanks > > > > > > > If you really want to convert RTL to C++, you should start with getting > > rid of rtx_format and rtx_class, and make REG_P etc. work just as they > > have always done. > Yup. And continue pushing the rtx_insn bits deeper, tackling INSN_LIST, > etc. > > jeff
