On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 14:35 +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 03:21:22PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > Apart from the GTY aspect, how do people feel about the patch series? > > FWIW I have vague thoughts about doing something similar for tree - > > doing so *might* give an easier route to the type vs expression > > separation that Andrew spoke about at the Cauldron rearchitecture BoF. > > (I started looking at doing a similar C++-ification of rtx, but... > > gahhhhh) > > > > I like it but before you start looking at the biger things, could you > perhpas proceed with the symtab? It has much fewer classes, will > probably affect private development of fewer people, the accessor > macros/functions of symtab are less developed so it will immediately > really make code nicer, Honza has approved it and I'm really looking > forward to it. Also, perhaps it will show us at much saller scale > potential problems with the general scheme.
Sorry about the delay. I wasn't aware that it had been approved; there seemed to be a lot of caveats and objections in that thread. On re-reading, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg01147.html could be seen as approval, but I guess I was making a conservative reading of that post. I hope to refresh the patches and reboostrap/repost them at some point this week. > I'm only writing this because the development there seems a bit > stalled and it it a shame. Of course, you ay want to simplify the > manual markings first. I'd perfectly understand that. I've been poking at gengtype (and running benchmarks; see other post), which would affect the symtab patch, though it's something of a quagmire...