Re: [rfa] libiberty: splay tree performance improvement

["Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>]

Hi -


dj wrote:
> > Well, the canonical method is to not have the declarations of these
> > structs within the public header at all, just to use opaque pointers
> > within the API [...]
> 
> We still want to be able to access fields within the structure
> directly, just not be able to do anything that needs the size of the
> structure.

These don't sound like mutually compatible goals.

> > With the GDB nonuse news, is the patch ok to commit (with the struct
> > field additions moved to the bottom as requested)?
> 
> Did you check gcc to make sure it always does the right thing?

What does that mean?  As I wrote initially, gcc bootstraps fine with
the changes.


- FChE

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature