This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Re:
On 16 Aug, 2004, at 13.53, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Ziemowit Laski wrote:
This is the part that I find problematic. :-( The work contained in
the
two patches I posted last night, in addition to a couple of patches I
committed previously (and a few more I have yet to offer) is all part
of my ObjC++ integration (approved by the Steering Committee for 3.5
integration). Furthermore, these bits already live in
objc-improvements-branch, available for the bootstrapping pleasure of
all.
If you don't like the proposed split, one you could try would be
separating out the patch to stop the ObjC front end depending on
particular structures for declarators, which is the part of the merge
currently blocking a replacement of those structures.
Yeah, I've been sitting here and ruminating about how to break up this
behemoth. As you may imagine, the various features are not only deeply
intertwined, but have not ever had a separate existence, since all of
this stuff was being worked on simultaneously on
objc-improvements-branch.... :-(
I have looked at the C front end changes and believe that they only
affect
ObjC, and have no comments on them beyond those Zack has made, but
don't
think changes only affecting ObjC are for me to review.
Does this mean that, after I address the issues raised by Zack, my
patch would be OK to commit? :-)
Not entirely sure how to parse your message here...
Where is the evidence that this is, or is likely to be, of any
measurable
performance difference, compiling any source code whatever? It looks
like
premature micro-optimization without such evidence.
I can certainly remove the c_dialect_objc() conjunct if you like.
Thanks,
--Zem
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ziemowit Laski 1 Infinite Loop, MS 301-2K
Mac OS X Compiler Group Cupertino, CA USA 95014-2083
Apple Computer, Inc. +1.408.974.6229 Fax .5477