On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > On 12-05-20 13:59 , Richard Henderson wrote: >> >> On 05/18/2012 04:48 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: >>> >>> We can do this in trunk today using a variant of Lawrence's original >>> patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01649.html). This >>> uses no C++ features, though it weakens type checking by removing away >>> constness. >>> >>> In the cxx-conversion branch, we can use overloads, which will DTRT >>> with const. >>> >>> My question is, what do folks prefer? >>> >>> a) The trunk patch today, using no C++ features. >>> b) Wait for the cxx-conversion variant? >> >> >> Surely (check(t), t) also works, and also strt wrt const. > > > My concern with (check(t), t) is that it evaluates 't' twice. It may not be > a big deal, however. In which case, I'm OK with that alternative.
Hum. A source of possibly nasty errors. I'd like to avoid using templates here though. Going with two overloads for each function sounds like the best solution to me, thus delay the change to cxx-switch time. What's the effect on bootstrap times? Remember we build stage1 with -O0 and checking enabled always ... Richard. > > Diego. >
