> Hi, > > I believe the general consensus is that lazy call graph node creation > is no longer a good idea and a few of us have seen bugs caused by a > creation of a node when we did not expect it. Therefore I embarked on > getting rid of it. In the process I quickly realized it would be > difficult to do that completely but it is certainly possible to weed > it out of most places where it is not necessary. We can then tackle > the remaining places separately. > > These patches are meant to be applied on top of > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01170.html > > The first patch in the series removes the cgraph_node function. Most > of its callers should use already existing cgraph_get_node instead, > for the others there are new functions: > > - craph_create_node will create a node but fail on assert if there > already is a node for the declaration > > - cgraph_get_create_node is the new lazy node creation. I did not > want to continue using cgraph_node name because I really thought the > it was unfortunate and the new name will also help us to discourage > potential new uses and isolate those that we might want to convert > to a non-lazy way of creating nodes later. > > - cgraph_do_get_node is a simple wrapper around cgraph_get_node which > checking_asserts that the return value is not NULL. I found it very > useful while developing the patch and think it can be sometimes > useful even in the longer term, for example when the result is > stored in some data structure which is to be used later. If the > general consensus is that we don't want it, it is easy to remove it > from the patch.
Well, I didn't quite expected we will get 3 new accesstors to the cgraph, but I see it can be useful. I would perhaps go with cgraph_maybe_create_node that seems more consistent with names elsewhere, but cgraph_get_create_node seems OK to me, too. Thanks! Honza
