Re: My evil plans for the next few weekends

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 01:08:29PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> Depending on what field, yes, I'll object.  There should be a "minimal
> decl" for which the "normal" decl stuff should belong to.  DECL_ALIGN,
> for instance.
>
>
> > But you probably shouldn't have been doing that in the first place :)

I'm strongly in support of doing what Daniel wants to do.  I've been 
wanting to do it since forever.

In fact, the only things that are probably common to *all* DECLs are (a) 
a name, and (b) a source position, and (c) a scope.

DECL_ALIGN certainly doesn't apply to namespaces, or enumeration 
constants, or type declarations.  (Well, it might presently apply to 
type declarations, but it shouldn't; if someone declares an aligned type 
that should show up on the type.)  I'm not sure if DECL_ALIGN applies to 
functions; maybe it could.

It's perfectly reasonable to have "typed_decl" as a derived class of 
"decl" which contains a type; then "var_decl" and "function_decl" would 
be derived from that, for example.

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