On Aug 25, 2013, at 12:26 AM, Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote: > (2) Adding a new namespace, wi, for the operators. So far this > just contains the previously-static comparison functions > and whatever else was needed to avoid cross-dependencies > between wi and wide_int_ro (except for the debug routines).
It seems reasonable; I don't see anything I object to. Seems like most of the time, the code is shorter (though, you use wi, which is fairly short). It doesn't seem any more complex, though, knowing how to spell the operation wide_int:: v wi:: is confusing on the client side. I'm torn between this and the nice things that come with the patch. > (3) Removing the comparison member functions and using the static > ones everywhere. I've love to have richi weigh in (or someone else that wants to play the role of C++ coding expert)… I'd defer to them… > The idea behind using a namespace rather than static functions > is that it makes it easier to separate the core, tree and rtx bits. Being able to separate core, tree and rtx bits gets a +1 in my book. I do understand the beauty of this. > IMO wide-int.h shouldn't know about trees and rtxes, and all routines > related to them should be in tree.h and rtl.h instead. But using > static functions means that you have to declare everything in one place. > Also, it feels odd for wide_int to be both an object and a home > of static functions that don't always operate on wide_ints, e.g. when > comparing a CONST_INT against 16. Yes, though, does wi feel odd being a home for comparing a CONST_INT and 16? :-) > I realise I'm probably not being helpful here. Iterating on how we want to code to look like is reasonable. Prettying it up where it needs it, is good. Indeed, if the code is as you like, and as richi likes, we'll then our mission is just about complete. :-) For this patch, I'd love to defer to richi (or someone that has a stronger opinion than I do) to say, better, worse…
