On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 00:34 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/31/13 10:26, David Malcolm wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/gcc/gimple.c b/gcc/gimple.c
> > index 9b1337a..e9ef8e0 100644
> > --- a/gcc/gimple.c
> > +++ b/gcc/gimple.c
> > @@ -641,21 +641,22 @@ static inline gimple
> > gimple_build_asm_1 (const char *string, unsigned ninputs, unsigned
> > noutputs,
> > unsigned nclobbers, unsigned nlabels)
> > {
> > - gimple p;
> > + gimple_statement_asm *p;
> > int size = strlen (string);
> >
> > /* ASMs with labels cannot have outputs. This should have been
> > enforced by the front end. */
> > gcc_assert (nlabels == 0 || noutputs == 0);
> >
> > - p = gimple_build_with_ops (GIMPLE_ASM, ERROR_MARK,
> > - ninputs + noutputs + nclobbers + nlabels);
> > + p = as_a <gimple_statement_asm> (
> > + gimple_build_with_ops (GIMPLE_ASM, ERROR_MARK,
> > + ninputs + noutputs + nclobbers + nlabels));
> >
> > - p->gimple_asm.ni = ninputs;
> > - p->gimple_asm.no = noutputs;
> > - p->gimple_asm.nc = nclobbers;
> > - p->gimple_asm.nl = nlabels;
> > - p->gimple_asm.string = ggc_alloc_string (string, size);
> > + p->ni = ninputs;
> > + p->no = noutputs;
> > + p->nc = nclobbers;
> > + p->nl = nlabels;
> > + p->string = ggc_alloc_string (string, size);
> As noted in a prior message, having build methods would eliminate this
> downcasting. Not necessary for this patch, just wanted to point it out
> to anyone reading. I won't point it out everywhere ;-)
This one (gimple_build_asm_1) is itself a build method. The checking on
the downcast could be argued to be redundant, since presumably we trust
gimple_build_with_ops to give us a stmt with the code we asked for, but
I don't think it hurts.
> So given the prior disussions around as_a, I'm not going to object to
> these as_a instances. I see them as warts/markers that we have further
> work to do in terms of fleshing out the class and possibly refactoring
> code.
>
> Conditionally OK. Conditional on the other related patches going in and
> keeping it updated with Andrew's churn. If/when the set goes in, post
> the final version you actually checkin -- no re-review is needed for
> this hunk so long as any changes are the obvious fixing of fallout from
> Andrew's work.
Thanks.
