This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: C++: Why do we nreverse CLASSTYPE_TAGS


Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com> writes:

| On 25 Mar 2003 06:38:33 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net> wrote:
| 
| > Yes.  However, a linear search is done when looking for nested-types
| > in decl.c:lookup_tag().  Replacing current_binding_level->tags with a 
| > hash-table turned out to affect CLASSTYPE_TAGS also since we do some
| > random assignments here and there...
| 
| Do we still need to use current_binding_level->tags to find types?

Similarly, we don't need to have two separate bindings,
IDENTIFIER_BINDINGS and IDENTIFIER_NAMESPACE_BINDINGS. 

-- Gaby


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]