On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:00 PM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 11:45 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:41 AM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:43 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:27:50PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 14:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> >> > > To be constructive here - the above case is from within a
>> >> >> > > GIMPLE_ASSIGN case label
>> >> >> > > and thus I'd have expected
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > case GIMPLE_ASSIGN:
>> >> >> > > {
>> >> >> > > gassign *a1 = as_a <gassign *> (s1);
>> >> >> > > gassign *a2 = as_a <gassign *> (s2);
>> >> >> > > lhs1 = gimple_assign_lhs (a1);
>> >> >> > > lhs2 = gimple_assign_lhs (a2);
>> >> >> > > if (TREE_CODE (lhs1) != SSA_NAME
>> >> >> > > && TREE_CODE (lhs2) != SSA_NAME)
>> >> >> > > return (operand_equal_p (lhs1, lhs2, 0)
>> >> >> > > && gimple_operand_equal_value_p
>> >> >> > > (gimple_assign_rhs1 (a1),
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > gimple_assign_rhs1 (a2)));
>> >> >> > > else if (TREE_CODE (lhs1) == SSA_NAME
>> >> >> > > && TREE_CODE (lhs2) == SSA_NAME)
>> >> >> > > return vn_valueize (lhs1) == vn_valueize (lhs2);
>> >> >> > > return false;
>> >> >> > > }
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > instead. That's the kind of changes I have expected and have
>> >> >> > > approved of.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But even that looks like just adding extra work for all developers,
>> >> >> > with no
>> >> >> > gain. You only have to add extra code and extra temporaries, in
>> >> >> > switches
>> >> >> > typically also have to add {} because of the temporaries and thus
>> >> >> > extra
>> >> >> > indentation level, and it doesn't simplify anything in the code.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The branch attempts to use the C++ typesystem to capture information
>> >> >> about the kinds of gimple statement we expect, both:
>> >> >> (A) so that the compiler can detect type errors, and
>> >> >> (B) as a comprehension aid to the human reader of the code
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The ideal here is when function params and struct field can be
>> >> >> strengthened from "gimple" to a subclass ptr. This captures the
>> >> >> knowledge that every use of a function or within a struct has a given
>> >> >> gimple code.
>> >> >
>> >> > I just don't like all the as_a/is_a stuff enforced everywhere,
>> >> > it means more typing, more temporaries, more indentation.
>> >> > So, as I view it, instead of the checks being done cheaply (yes, I think
>> >> > the gimple checking as we have right now is very cheap) under the
>> >> > hood by the accessors (gimple_assign_{lhs,rhs1} etc.), those changes
>> >> > put the burden on the developers, who has to check that manually through
>> >> > the as_a/is_a stuff everywhere, more typing and uglier syntax.
>> >> > I just don't see that as a step forward, instead a huge step backwards.
>> >> > But perhaps I'm alone with this.
>> >> > Can you e.g. compare the size of - lines in your patchset combined, and
>> >> > size of + lines in your patchset? As in, if your changes lead to less
>> >> > typing or more.
>> >>
>> >> I see two ways out here. One is to add overloads to all the functions
>> >> taking the special types like
>> >>
>> >> tree
>> >> gimple_assign_rhs1 (gimple *);
>> >>
>> >> or simply add
>> >>
>> >> gassign *operator ()(gimple *g) { return as_a <gassign *> (g); }
>> >>
>> >> into a gimple-compat.h header which you include in places that
>> >> are not converted "nicely".
>> >
>> > Thanks for the suggestions.
>> >
>> > Am I missing something, or is the gimple-compat.h idea above not valid C
>> > ++?
>> >
>> > Note that "gimple" is still a typedef to
>> > gimple_statement_base *
>> > (as noted before, the gimple -> gimple * change would break everyone
>> > else's patches, so we talked about that as a followup patch for early
>> > stage3).
>> >
>> > Given that, if I try to create an "operator ()" outside of a class, I
>> > get this error:
>> >
>> > ‘gassign* operator()(gimple)’ must be a nonstatic member function
>> >
>> > which is emitted from cp/decl.c's grok_op_properties:
>> > /* An operator function must either be a non-static member function
>> > or have at least one parameter of a class, a reference to a class,
>> > an enumeration, or a reference to an enumeration. 13.4.0.6 */
>> >
>> > I tried making it a member function of gimple_statement_base, but that
>> > doesn't work either: we want a conversion
>> > from a gimple_statement_base * to a gassign *, not
>> > from a gimple_statement_base to a gassign *.
>> >
>> > Is there some syntactic trick here that I'm missing? Sorry if I'm being
>> > dumb (I can imagine there's a way of doing it by making "gimple" become
>> > some kind of wrapped ptr class, but that way lies madness, surely).
>>
>> Hmm.
>>
>> struct assign;
>> struct base {
>> operator assign *() const { return (assign *)this; }
>> };
>> struct assign : base {
>> };
>>
>> void foo (assign *);
>> void bar (base *b)
>> {
>> foo (b);
>> }
>>
>> doesn't work, but
>>
>> void bar (base &b)
>> {
>> foo (b);
>> }
>>
>> does. Indeed C++ doesn't seem to provide what is necessary
>> for the compat trick :(
>>
>> So the gimple-compat.h header would need to provide
>> additional overloads for the affected functions like
>>
>> inline tree
>> gimple_assign_rhs1 (gimple *g)
>> {
>> return gimple_assign_rhs1 (as_a <gassign *> (g));
>> }
>>
>> that would work for me as well.
>>
>> >> Both avoid manually making the compiler happy (which the
>> >> explicit as_a<> stuff is! It doesn't add any "checking" - it's
>> >> just placing the as_a<> at the callers and thus make the
>> >> runtine ICE fire there).
>> >>
>> >> As much as I don't like "global" conversion operators I don't
>> >> like adding overloads to all of the accessor functions even more.
>> >
>> > (nods)
>> >
>> > Some other options:
>> >
>> > Option 3: only convert the "easy" accessors: the ones I already did in
>> > the /89 patch kit, as reviewed by Jeff, and rebased by me recently,
>> > which is this 92-patch kit:
>> > "[gimple-classes, committed 00/92] Initial slew of commits":
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg02791.html
>> > Doing so converts about half of the gimple_foo_ accessors to taking a
>> > gfoo *, giving a mixture of GIMPLE_CHECK vs subclass use. I believe
>> > the quality of those patches was higher than the later ones on the
>> > branch: I was doing the places that didn't require the invasive/verbose
>> > changes seen in the later patches. Shelve the remaining ~80
>> > increasingly ugly patches, starting a new branch to contain just the
>> > good ones.
>
> I've created a branch "dmalcolm/gimple-classes-v2-option-3"
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/gimple-classes-v2-option-3
>
> which takes the work reviewed by Jeff and the most trivial of the merger
> followup work, throwing away the ~80 unloved followup patches on
> dmalcolm/gimple-classes.
>
> I've merged from yesterday's trunk r217593 into that new branch,
> resolving conflicts.
>
> I did this in two parts: the basic merger as
> bd7fe714158f0c600caa05be7d744fd9139b8afb
> resolving conflicts, with a followup patch to fixup new code from trunk
> that used accessors that on the branch required a gimple subclass.
>
> Attached is that 2nd part of the merger.
>
> Successfully bootstrapped and regrtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu;
> same regrtest results as a control bootstrap of trunk's r217593.
>
> I appreciate Jakub and others have concerns about the overall approach.
> I'm not sure which of option 2 (gimple-compat.h), option 3 (this one),
> option 4 (just convert fields and non-accessor params), or defer to gcc
> 6 is the best one, but I'm sleep-deprived and wanted to submit this
> before the stage1 deadline.
>
> The other commits on this pruned branch that haven't been reviewed yet
> are:
>
> [gimple-classes, committed 88/92] Preparatory work before subclass
> renaming
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg02820.html
Ok.
> [gimple-classes, committed 89/92] Eliminate subclass typedefs from
> coretypes.h
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg02838.html
Ok.
> [gimple-classes, committed 90/92] Automated renaming of gimple
> subclasses
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg02828.html
Ok.
> [gimple-classes, committed 91/92] Remove out-of-date references to
> typedefs]
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg02874.html
Ok.
> [gimple-classes, committed 92/92] Update gimple.texi class hierarchy
> diagram
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg02818.html
Ok.
> [gimple-classes] Merge trunk r216157-r216746 into branch
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg02982.html
Ok.
> Also, presumably if this were merged, it would require a followup with
> the gimple to gimple * fixup you wanted? (which we talked about doing as
> an early stage3 thing IIRC [1]).
Yeah, that would be nice (to remind people - this is about getting rid
of const_gimple and thus avoids introducing tons of new const_
for all the subclasses).
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks
> Dave
> [1] e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg01536.html
>
>
>> > Option 4: don't convert any accessors, but instead focus on fields of
>> > structs (e.g. "call_stmt" within a cgraph_edge), and on params of other
>> > functions (e.g. phi-manipulation code). That way we'd avoid the
>> > inconsistency of some accessors using GIMPLE_CHECK and some using
>> > subclasses - all would continue to consistently use GIMPLE_CHECK, but
>> > there would be some extra type-checking and self-documentation of the
>> > expected statement kinds in the code.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > FWIW, option 3 is my preferred approach (I've already done the bulk of
>> > the work and it's already been reviewed; it would need an update merger
>> > from trunk, and there's the big gimple to gimple * fixup you wanted).
>>
>> Works for me as well. The compat solution looks somewhat appealing
>> as we can then incrementally fix up things rather than requiring to
>> mass-convert everything.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
>>
>> >> Whether you enable them generally or just for selected files
>> >> via a gimple-compat.h will be up to you (but I'd rather get
>> >> rid of them at some point).
>> >>
>> >> Note this allows seamless transform of "random" functions
>> >> taking a gimple now but really only expecting a single kind.
>> >>
>> >> Note that we don't absolutely have to rush this all in for GCC 5.
>> >> Being the very first for GCC 6 stage1 is another possibility.
>> >> We just should get it right.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Dave
>> >
>
