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: named address spaces (update)

From: James E Wilson <wilson at specifix dot com>
To: Martin Koegler <mkoegler at auto dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 19:57:40 -0700
Subject: Re: named address spaces (update)
References: <20050629084740.GA8315@ahab.auto.tuwien.ac.at> <42C5F29E.6000004@specifixinc.com> <20050703143104.GA18820@ahab.auto.tuwien.ac.at>

On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 07:31, Martin Koegler wrote:
> * need to rewrite recursivly each element of type (which my contain structures, 
>   unions, ...) if a address space is set
>   In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg01438.html, this was rated as bad idea.

It is possible I was wrong.  Conceptually, this doesn't seem much
different than existing type qualifiers const/volatile, for which case
we must already have a solution.  Maybe similar treatment will work for
named address spaces?

Otherwise, these answers all seem very reasonable.

One more thing occurred to me.  An official patch will also require
documentation.  We will need user documentation to explain the new
source code constructs and their behaviour.  And we will need internals
documentation to explain the new macros, etc.
-- 
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.specifix.com

References:
- Re: named address spaces (update)
  - From: James E Wilson
- Re: named address spaces (update)
  - From: Martin Koegler

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