On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Diego Novillo wrote: > >> I like this approach, particularly since it would be used in contexts >> where there is no simpler scheme. I'm not crazy about overloading >> unused fields, but it's fine if we wrap it around a special accessor. I >> suppose we could also make ENTRY/EXIT be a base class for basic_block >> and use a real field (but that can wait). > > Actually the other way around (ENTRY/EXIT be a subclass), as it would be
Yeah, sorry. > an additional field to the normal basic blocks. But for central data > structures I'm usually of the opinion that jumping through hoops just to > not enlarge them is quite acceptable :) Yeah, adding a full word when it's only used in a few places does not seem like a good tradeoff. >> There are other pieces of data that are "global" but context-dependent. >> I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to encapsulate them in some class >> that is controlled by the pass manager and gets updated as it moves from >> function to function (it would contain things like cfun, >> current_function_decl, etc). > > And on that topic: I think it makes sense to eventually get rid of one or > the other, current_function_decl is always (well, mostly) cfun->decl, if > cfun happens to be set. I know there are some roadblocks in front of that > goal, but still. Agreed. Diego.
