On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 12:08 AM Lehua Ding <lehua.d...@rivai.ai> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 2023/10/31 14:48, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> +inline
> >> +gimple_match_op::gimple_match_op (const gimple_match_cond &cond_in,
> >> + code_helper code_in, tree type_in,
> >> + tree op0, tree op1, tree op2, tree op3,
> >> + tree op4, tree op5)
> >> + : cond (cond_in), code (code_in), type (type_in), reverse (false),
> >> + num_ops (6)
> >> +{
> >> + ops[0] = op0;
> >> + ops[1] = op1;
> >> + ops[2] = op2;
> >> + ops[3] = op3;
> >> + ops[4] = op4;
> >> + ops[5] = op5;
> >> +}
> > Hmm, does it make sense to start to use variadic templates for these
> > constructors instead of writing them out?
> > And we can even add a static_assert to make sure the number of
> > arguments is <= MAX_NUM_OPS to make sure they are correct. And use
> > std::is_same to make sure we are only passing tree types.
>
> You mean something like this?:
>
> template<typename... op_types>
> inline
> gimple_match_op::gimple_match_op (const gimple_match_cond &cond_in,
> code_helper code_in, tree type_in,
> op_types... ops)
> : cond (cond_in), code (code_in), type (type_in), reverse (false),
> num_ops (sizeof...(ops))
> {
> static_assert (sizeof...(ops) <= MAX_NUM_OPS);
> auto op_list[] = {ops...};
> for (int i = 0; i < sizeof...(ops); i++)
> this->ops[i] = op_list[i];
> }
Yes and maybe use tree for the type of op_list instead of auto.
I suspect this code was originally written before GCC was written in C++11.
Maybe if this code is being compiled with C++20 we could do something like:
#include <concepts>
template< std::same_as<tree>... op_types>
To get a decent error message earlier ...
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> --
> Best,
> Lehua (RiVAI)
> lehua.d...@rivai.ai
