This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 07:51:55PM +0000, Jason Merrill wrote: > >>>>> "Jakub" == Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 05:50:01PM +0000, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> >>>>> "Jakub" == Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> > (do_pending_inlines): Set last for the last pending_inlines in the > >> > chain, chain current processing_these_inlines to it. > >> > >> Would it would make sense to save processing_these_inlines in struct > >> cp_function? Maybe not; there doesn't seem to be any precedent for saving > >> variables that relate to the enclosing context. > > > It is certainly possible, yes. If you prefer that as a cleaner solution, I > > can code it up. > > I think I would prefer that, thanks. Below, bootstrap pending, ok to commit if no regressions? > >> > BTW: is the unparsed_text made by snarf_defarg registered with GC somehow? > >> > Doesn't look like that to me... > >> > >> It's attached to the parameter it is the default for. > > > But nobody is ever calling mark_pending_inlines on it, so it is not. > > But it's attached to the parameter, which is attached to the function, > which is attached to the class, which is attached to the namespace, which > is attached to the global list of decls, which is a GC root. Right? Yes, registered with GC is not a good term for what I've been asking. I wanted to know if somebody ever calls ggc_mark_tree on the trees stored within, and it looks like nobody is doing this. I'll write a separate patch for this. Jakub
Attachment:
P3
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |