Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > On 02/18/2016 06:58 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> We initially created the static visit_type_FOO_fields() helper >>> function for reuse of code - we have cases where the initial >>> setup for a visit has different allocation (depending on whether >>> the fields represent a stand-alone type or are embedded as part >>> of a larger type), but where the actual field visits are >>> identical once a pointer is available. >>> >>> Up until the previous patch, visit_type_FOO_fields() was only >>> used for structs (no variants), so it was covering every field >>> for each type where it was emitted. >>> >>> Meanwhile, the code for visiting unions looks like: > > Maybe reword this to: > > Meanwhile, the previous patch updated the code for visiting unions to > look like:
I don't mind. >>> The resulting diff to the generated code is a bit hard to read, >> >> Mostly because a few visit_type_T_fields() get generated in a different >> place. If I move them back manually for a diff, the patch's effect >> becomes clear enough: the switch to visit the variants and the >> visit_start_union() guarding it moves from visit_type_T() to >> visit_type_T_fields(). That's what the commit message promises. > > I debated about splitting out a separate patch so that the motion of > visit_type_T_fields() is separate from the variant visiting, but it > wasn't worth the effort. I'm glad you managed to see through the churn > in the generated code. > > >>> -def gen_visit_struct_fields(name, base, members): >>> +def gen_visit_struct_fields(name, base, members, variants=None): >> >> Two callers: >> >> * gen_visit_union(): the new code here comes from there, except it's now >> completely guarded by if variants. Effect: generated code motion. >> >> * gen_visit_struct(): passes no variants, guard false, thus no change. >> >> I think the patch becomes slightly clearer if you make the variants >> parameter mandatory. It'll probably become mandatory anyway when we >> unify gen_visit_struct() and gen_visit_union(). > > You beat me to it - yes, I realized that after sending the series. We > can either squash in the fix here to make variants mandatory (and > gen_visit_struct() pass an explicit None, which disappears in the next > patch), or squash in a fix to 7/15 to delete the '=None'. Either way, > I'm fine if you tackle that, if no other major findings turn up. Can do.
