On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 03:24:55PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/21/13 15:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:25:52PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> >>>So is there some reason the GIMPLE_CHECK was left in here rather than
> >>>doing the downcasting? This happens in other places.
> >
> >Note that the changes removed tons of checks that IMHO were desirable.
> >The as_a that replaced those checks e.g. allows 3 different gimple codes,
> >while previously only one was allowed, this is both more expensive for
> >--enable-checking=yes, and allows one to use inline wrappers e.g.
> >gimple_omp_parallel_something on GIMPLE_OMP_TASK etc.
> Can you give a couple examples, please?
I mean e.g.
gimple_omp_parallel_{,set_}{clauses,child_fn,data_arg}{,_ptr}
gimple_omp_taskreg_{,set_}{clauses,child_fn,data_arg}{,_ptr}
gimple_omp_target_{,set_}{clauses,child_fn,data_arg}{,_ptr}
gimple_omp_teams_{,set_}clauses{,_ptr}
gimple_omp_return_{,set_}lhs{,_ptr}
gimple_omp_atomic_store_{,set_}val{,_ptr}
gimple_resx_{,set_}region
gimple_eh_dispatch_{,set_}region
Jakub
