Re: [PATCH]: Move FIELD_DECL into it's own structure

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > I looked into some of this in the past too, but I was not so adventurous
> > as Dan to actually try doing the hard work.  The main reason was that it
> > is just impossible to determine beforehand how trees are to be split up,
>
>
> I plan on documenting *how* i split them up,  how to add new trees, how 
> to deal with inheritance and checking, and when they should be split up.

Great; that's exactly what I'm looking for.

> I'm writing this stuff on the wiki right now.

I wonder if it might be possible to put it directly into the manual?  I 
did say Wiki before, so if this is a pain, then I'll help with the 
translation to TeXinfo.  I'm sorry about switching gears here, and I 
don't want to be wasting your time.

> My whole evil plan is to have a single inheritance hierarchy for _DECL, 
> and if this means occasionally we have to waste 4 bytes because of it, 
> *that's* not so  big a problem, as long as we are wasting 4 bytes out of 
> 64, not 4 bytes out of 208 :)

I agree.

> I should also note my current plans only include _DECL nodes, but the 
> same principles could be applied to *all* our tree nodes.

Exactly.  It would be great if you could write things neutrally, perhaps 
using DECLs for examples, but in such a way that it was obvious we would 
do this with TYPEs and expressions later in the same way.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304