> We do not yet seem to have consensus on a long term plan.
> Would it be reasonable to start on short term prepatory work?
>
> In particular, I was think we could do
>
> Add converters and testers.
> Change callers to use those.
>
> and maybe
>
> Change callers to use type-safe parameters.
>
> Where those mean what I earlier stated.
>
> Comments?
Yes, it seems sane.
>
> CONVERTERS AND TESTERS ###########################################
>
> add
> symtab_node_base &symtab_node_def::ref_symbol()
> { return symbol; }
> symtab_node_base &cgraph_node::ref_symbol()
> { return symbol; }
> symtab_node_base &varpool_node::ref_symbol()
> { return symbol; }
>
> change
> node->symbol.whatever
> to
> node->ref_symbol().whatever
I still do not gather why simple inheritance can't let me to write
node->whatever again...
If that is GTY limitation, I have no problem having this in short term and
update it later. symbol_node is really base of functions/variables and new
beasts we are going to get soon.
I implemented it as union only to make GTY happy.
>
> ----
>
> should not need to add these
>
> cgraph_node &symtab_node_def::ref_cgraph()
> { gcc_assert (symbol.type == SYMTAB_FUNCTION);
I think checking_assert is enough in these cases. We are getting more
conversions back and forth and we don't really want to have asserts all around
code.
> return x_function; }
> varpool_node &symtab_node_def::ref_varpool()
> { gcc_assert (symbol.type == SYMTAB_VARIABLE);
> return x_variable; }
>
> ----
>
> add
> symtab_node_base *symtab_node_def::try_symbol()
> { return &symbol; }
> cgraph_node *symtab_node_def::try_cgraph()
> { return symbol.type == SYMTAB_FUNCTION ? &x_function : NULL; }
> varpool_node *symtab_node_def::try_varpool()
> { return symbol.type == SYMTAB_VARIABLE ? &x_variable : NULL; }
I think try_function/try_variable reads better than cgraph/varpool especially
with the
longer term plan to drop these names when cgraph/varpool no longer exists and
we have
symbol table.
Honza
