On 9/5/12, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> CONVERTERS AND TESTERS ###########################################
>>
>> add
>> symtab_node_base &symtab_node_def::ref_symbol()
>> { return symbol; }
>> symtab_node_base &cgraph_node::ref_symbol()
>> { return symbol; }
>> symtab_node_base &varpool_node::ref_symbol()
>> { return symbol; }
>>
>> change
>> node->symbol.whatever
>> to
>> node->ref_symbol().whatever
>
> OK, the basic idea is that symtab_node is basetype of
> cgraph_node and varpool_node.
Yes.
> We may want to drop the historica cgraph/varpool names here,
> since function_node/variable_node would sound better. Cgraph
> still exists, but varpool is more or less historical relic.
I have a general preference for making name changes separate from
function changes when doing so makes svn diffs better reflect the
actual changes. That may or may not be useful here, but I am happy
to use those names for the final product.
> I would expect inheritance to allow me to write node->whatever
> and to have casting operators to convert things back and forth,
> so we only need to add testers?
The inheritance allows implicit derived to base conversion,
which is type-safe. With inheritance, the converting functions
are needed only for the conversion from base to derived, which
generally requires dynamic information to be safe.
> Probably is_function/is_variable & try_function/try_variable
> sounds more readable to me. What do you think?
Fine with me.
> (I just arrived from China, so will take it more tought once
> unjetlagged)
--
Lawrence Crowl
