This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: [RFA] Integrated hashtables take 2

To: zackw at Stanford dot EDU
Subject: Re: [RFA] Integrated hashtables take 2
From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 12:18:18 -0700
Cc: neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <20010519185946.A2106@daikokuya.demon.co.uk><20010519113221H.mitchell@codesourcery.com><20010519120644.J774@stanford.edu>

>>>>> "Zack" == Zack Weinberg <zackw@Stanford.EDU> writes:
 
    Zack> We want to do this anyway, because it'll save two pointers
    Zack> per structure (as far as I can tell, both TREE_CHAIN and
    Zack> TREE_TYPE are unused for IDENTIFIER_NODEs) and possibly we
    Zack> could cram the few bits of the flag word in somewhere else,
    Zack> saving another four bytes...

See identifier_type_value in cc1plus.

Anyhow, if we want to do this, we should do it first.

    Zack> If we can do that in the near future, then I don't think
    Zack> there's a problem with a temporary layering violation.

Temporary is such a funny word.  :-)

We still have those "fix this before GCC 1.3" comments after all.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

References:
- [RFA] Integrated hashtables take 2
  - From: Neil Booth
- Re: [RFA] Integrated hashtables take 2
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: [RFA] Integrated hashtables take 2
  - From: Zack Weinberg

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