This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH]: Trying to make list nodes smaller, but the C++ FEkeeps beating me down
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 17:33:18 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Trying to make list nodes smaller, but the C++ FEkeeps beating me down
- References: <6B6D3BE6-C57F-11D9-B874-003065BDF310@apple.com>
On Sun, 2005-05-15 at 13:25 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Sunday, May 15, 2005, at 11:44 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > Stop here.
>
> :-)
>
> > We have other trees that don't have types :)
>
> Yes, and our take is that we should just move to hard typing for all of
> them, and escape the confines of soft tree typing for them all.
At this point i'd rather just move to C++ and see us have a real tree
baseclass.
>
> The problem is, if you can pass it to a (tree t) function, and they
> check TREE_TYPE (t), then we wind up in limbo. Even with the checking
> code to make it soft, it is hard to be sure that you got everything.
Yes, well, such is life :)
> Also, to see the savings, you may need to add more sizes to the
> allocation routine's pool sizes, otherwise, it will just truncate up to
> the next bigger size, which can undo all the savings one would
> otherwise see.
I build with zone anyway, it's faster :)
>