On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 04:11 +0800, Chiheng Xu wrote: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Chiheng Xu <chiheng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > And I want to say that tree/gimple/rtl are compiler's data(or state), > > not compiler's text(or logic), the most important thing about them is > > how to access their fields. > > > > Given the above assumption, now I doubt the necessity of accessor > macros or C++ getter/setter method.
According to my experience, it doesn't take more time/effort to write "tree->code ()" instead of "tree->code" and such getter functions allow for easier refactoring etc. If you omit the getters/setters you can't express things such as immutable objects (well you still could with const ivars but...), and you'll always have to have the ivar... > > Is "tree->code" more direct and efficient than "TREE_CODE(tree)" or > "tree->get_code()" ? What do you mean by efficient? All of them will (most likely) end up as the same machine code. But still, there's a reason why there's a TREE_CODE getter which is supposed to be used instead of writing "tree->base.code" everywhere... Cheers, Oleg
