Re: Proposed new tree node for gcc

[Per Bothner <bothner at cygnus dot com>]

> I think the only time we've had any significant problems with the
> tree space 

But past experience is not relevant here.  Our plan for Java
is to represent an entire class and maybe an entire program using
tree nodes.  I don't know if this is practical; the alternative
is parsing each source file twice.  In the past, we have only
represented a single statement using tree nodes.

> I'd kinda prefer to wait until we know that we're causing a memory
> issues before making a hack like is being suggested.

First, I don't think it's much of a hack. Less code is being changed
that if we had to define a a new struct type, and it makes perfect
sense to me to consider a EXPR_WITH_LINE (or whatever it's called)
as a unary no-op conversion with some annotations.

Secondly, we *know* there will be memory issues.

Perhaps the real issue is that we don't do far enough.  We might
consider removing 'chain' from common, and keeping it only where
it is useful (basically declarations and TREE_LIST).  But that is
more work than I feel like doing now ...

	--Per