On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Because it's otherwise almost unused. No "usual" gimple pass builds >>> up record types. What's the point in introducing the abstraction if >>> most of the users cannot use it? >> >> There may be few users on the gimple side, but you are mixing two >> orthogonal issues. Having a similar facility for FEs may be >> desirable, but not *this* one. >> >> Perhaps we could have a parent class provide a more generalized set of >> services. Each front end could use it or derive from it for its own >> use. The gimple version could do the same. Could that work? > > They all share layout_type so they should be able to share the record > builder.
That's why I was proposing a hierarchy. It's true that there is shared behaviour we want, but I'm sure that there will be services needed by FEs that are not required in gimple. Diego.
