On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 08:41:02PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 11:43 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:27:50PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 14:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >> > On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >> > > To be constructive here - the above case is from within a
> > >> > > GIMPLE_ASSIGN case label
> > >> > > and thus I'd have expected
> > >> > >
> > >> > > case GIMPLE_ASSIGN:
> > >> > > {
> > >> > > gassign *a1 = as_a <gassign *> (s1);
> > >> > > gassign *a2 = as_a <gassign *> (s2);
> > >> > > lhs1 = gimple_assign_lhs (a1);
> > >> > > lhs2 = gimple_assign_lhs (a2);
> > >> > > if (TREE_CODE (lhs1) != SSA_NAME
> > >> > > && TREE_CODE (lhs2) != SSA_NAME)
> > >> > > return (operand_equal_p (lhs1, lhs2, 0)
> > >> > > && gimple_operand_equal_value_p (gimple_assign_rhs1
> > >> > > (a1),
> > >> > > gimple_assign_rhs1
> > >> > > (a2)));
> > >> > > else if (TREE_CODE (lhs1) == SSA_NAME
> > >> > > && TREE_CODE (lhs2) == SSA_NAME)
> > >> > > return vn_valueize (lhs1) == vn_valueize (lhs2);
> > >> > > return false;
> > >> > > }
> > >> > >
> > >> > > instead. That's the kind of changes I have expected and have
> > >> > > approved of.
> > >> >
> > >> > But even that looks like just adding extra work for all developers,
> > >> > with no
> > >> > gain. You only have to add extra code and extra temporaries, in
> > >> > switches
> > >> > typically also have to add {} because of the temporaries and thus extra
> > >> > indentation level, and it doesn't simplify anything in the code.
> > >>
> > >> The branch attempts to use the C++ typesystem to capture information
> > >> about the kinds of gimple statement we expect, both:
> > >> (A) so that the compiler can detect type errors, and
> > >> (B) as a comprehension aid to the human reader of the code
> > >>
> > >> The ideal here is when function params and struct field can be
> > >> strengthened from "gimple" to a subclass ptr. This captures the
> > >> knowledge that every use of a function or within a struct has a given
> > >> gimple code.
> > >
> > > I just don't like all the as_a/is_a stuff enforced everywhere,
> > > it means more typing, more temporaries, more indentation.
> > > So, as I view it, instead of the checks being done cheaply (yes, I think
> > > the gimple checking as we have right now is very cheap) under the
> > > hood by the accessors (gimple_assign_{lhs,rhs1} etc.), those changes
> > > put the burden on the developers, who has to check that manually through
> > > the as_a/is_a stuff everywhere, more typing and uglier syntax.
> > > I just don't see that as a step forward, instead a huge step backwards.
> > > But perhaps I'm alone with this.
> > > Can you e.g. compare the size of - lines in your patchset combined, and
> > > size of + lines in your patchset? As in, if your changes lead to less
> > > typing or more.
> >
> > I see two ways out here. One is to add overloads to all the functions
> > taking the special types like
> >
> > tree
> > gimple_assign_rhs1 (gimple *);
> >
> > or simply add
> >
> > gassign *operator ()(gimple *g) { return as_a <gassign *> (g); }
> >
> > into a gimple-compat.h header which you include in places that
> > are not converted "nicely".
>
> Thanks for the suggestions.
>
> Am I missing something, or is the gimple-compat.h idea above not valid C
> ++?
I don't think its valid, but I know better than to bet C++ won't let you
do something crazy.
>
> Note that "gimple" is still a typedef to
> gimple_statement_base *
> (as noted before, the gimple -> gimple * change would break everyone
> else's patches, so we talked about that as a followup patch for early
> stage3).
>
> Given that, if I try to create an "operator ()" outside of a class, I
> get this error:
>
> ‘gassign* operator()(gimple)’ must be a nonstatic member function
>
> which is emitted from cp/decl.c's grok_op_properties:
> /* An operator function must either be a non-static member function
> or have at least one parameter of a class, a reference to a class,
> an enumeration, or a reference to an enumeration. 13.4.0.6 */
>
> I tried making it a member function of gimple_statement_base, but that
> doesn't work either: we want a conversion
> from a gimple_statement_base * to a gassign *, not
> from a gimple_statement_base to a gassign *.
>
> Is there some syntactic trick here that I'm missing? Sorry if I'm being
> dumb (I can imagine there's a way of doing it by making "gimple" become
> some kind of wrapped ptr class, but that way lies madness, surely).
>
> > Both avoid manually making the compiler happy (which the
> > explicit as_a<> stuff is! It doesn't add any "checking" - it's
> > just placing the as_a<> at the callers and thus make the
> > runtine ICE fire there).
> >
> > As much as I don't like "global" conversion operators I don't
> > like adding overloads to all of the accessor functions even more.
>
> (nods)
>
> Some other options:
>
> Option 3: only convert the "easy" accessors: the ones I already did in
> the /89 patch kit, as reviewed by Jeff, and rebased by me recently,
> which is this 92-patch kit:
> "[gimple-classes, committed 00/92] Initial slew of commits":
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg02791.html
> Doing so converts about half of the gimple_foo_ accessors to taking a
> gfoo *, giving a mixture of GIMPLE_CHECK vs subclass use. I believe
> the quality of those patches was higher than the later ones on the
> branch: I was doing the places that didn't require the invasive/verbose
> changes seen in the later patches. Shelve the remaining ~80
> increasingly ugly patches, starting a new branch to contain just the
> good ones.
>
>
> Option 4: don't convert any accessors, but instead focus on fields of
> structs (e.g. "call_stmt" within a cgraph_edge), and on params of other
> functions (e.g. phi-manipulation code). That way we'd avoid the
> inconsistency of some accessors using GIMPLE_CHECK and some using
> subclasses - all would continue to consistently use GIMPLE_CHECK, but
> there would be some extra type-checking and self-documentation of the
> expected statement kinds in the code.
>
>
>
> FWIW, option 3 is my preferred approach (I've already done the bulk of
> the work and it's already been reviewed; it would need an update merger
> from trunk, and there's the big gimple to gimple * fixup you wanted).
I'd agree with you in prefering 3, but if you do more work I'd suggest
you focus on 4, I think that's where the bigger readability gains are to
be had.
Trev
>
> > Whether you enable them generally or just for selected files
> > via a gimple-compat.h will be up to you (but I'd rather get
> > rid of them at some point).
> >
> > Note this allows seamless transform of "random" functions
> > taking a gimple now but really only expecting a single kind.
> >
> > Note that we don't absolutely have to rush this all in for GCC 5.
> > Being the very first for GCC 6 stage1 is another possibility.
> > We just should get it right.
>
> Thanks
> Dave
>
