On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 12:15:29PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > I would also like to get some comments on the following idea to make the > code checks more readable: I am thinking of adding > bool rtx_def::is_a (enum rtx_code) const > This would allow us to make all the rtx_code comparisons more readable > without having to define individual macros for each. > i.e., > REG_P (x) => x->is_a (REG) > GET_CODE (x) == PLUS => x->is_a (PLUS) > GET_CODE (PATTERN (x)) == SEQUENCE => PATTERN (x)->is_a (SEQUENCE)
That makes things much worse. Not only is it less readable (IMO), but the "is_a" idiom is used to check if something is of a certain class, which is not the case here. In "GET_CODE (x) == PLUS" it is clear that what the resulting machine code does is cheap. With "x->is_a (PLUS)", who knows what is happening below the covers! (And "REG_P" and similar are much shorter code to type). Segher
