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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Patch: darwin specific


Zack Weinberg wrote:

This interferes with my plans to make IDENTIFIERs not be trees.  Can
you find an alternate implementation please?
I too think it would be great to make IDENTIFIERs not be trees.
But I wonder how difficult that would be.  For example, TREE_TYPE
could be changed to point to a non-tree struct identifier - except
that sometimes it's a TYPE_DECL.  And I suspect there are other
problems.  That is why I've toyed with the dea of a hybrid:
A tree_base base class that contains the tree_code and the flags,
but not the TREE_TYPE or TREE_CHAIN fields.  Then tree_common
would extend tree_base, but tree_identifier would extend tree_base
directly.

But if you have more radical plans, I'd love to hear about them.

Along similar lines, one might define a simple_decl type that
contains only a subset of the tree_decl fields, and could be used
for CONST_DECL, VAR_DECL, and PARAM_DECL, saving considerable space.
--
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/per/


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