Hello
On 06/11/13 15:32, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, David Malcolm wrote:
Here's a followup patch which ensures that every gimple code has its own
subclass, by adding empty subclasses derived from the GSS_-based
subclasses as appropriate (I don't bother for gimple codes that already
have their own subclass due to having their own GSS layout). I also
copied the comments from gimple.def into gimple.h, so that Doxygen picks
up on the descriptions and uses them to describe each subclass.
I don't like that. The empty classes are just useless, they imply a
structure that isn't really there, some of the separate gimple codes are
basically selectors of specific subtypes of a generic concept, without
additional data or methods; creating a type for those is confusing.
Generally I don't like complicating the type system without good reasons
(as in actually also making use of the complicated types). The fewer
types the better IMO.
How would you do this? The types are different even if there is no
actual difference, much like there are different gimple codes in the
first place.
He is trying to create a bijection between what we did have and what we
now have so nothing breaks.
Ciao,
Michael.
