On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@google.com> wrote: > On 4/10/12, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 9, 2012 Lawrence Crowl <cr...@google.com> wrote: >> > On 4/9/12, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> > > > A build conversion to C++ is a precondition to any source >> > > > change using C++, though the two could be bundled into >> > > > one patch. In any event, I agree that the conversion >> > > > needs to provide value. Vectors and hash tables are a good >> > > > early target. >> > > >> > > Hash tables? Ugh, what is wrong with the hash tables we have >> > > right now in GCC? >> > >> > Lots of boiler plate involving casting to void*. Some of that >> > boiler plate makes the optimizer less effective. >> >> Optimizers ignore pointer types, so that assertion cannot be true. > > The standard says they need not ignore them. > > I was thinking more about iterating over the contents. What in the > current code is an indirect function call inside of a loop becomes > mostly be inline functions in a C++ iterator style. The loop is now > fully graspable by the optimizer.
We already use C++ iterator "style" and there are nearly no indirect function calls involved (unless you use the walk_*_with_* routines, which I detest, and you get the same when you use C++ foreach () style). Richard. > > -- > Lawrence Crowl
