Re: [C++ patch] one more missed mark_used

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 06:01, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > 
> > > Just for this part?  So, that means the patch is not approved since
> > > you had also comments on another part.
> > 
> > Correct.  I believe that my comment that:
> > 
> > > You should be careful about this test.  For example, I expect that you
> > > will now not walk the initializers of declarations, which might
> > contain
> > > pointers-to-members, or statement-expressions containing try/catch
> > > blocks.
> > 
> > is still valid.
> I see.
> Would be the patch OK with that test dropped?
> Perhaps we can still skip the types right?

With the test dropped, the patch would be correct.  Since we're already
doing the walk, I guess it wouldn't make things any slower.  So, that
version of the patch is OK.

But using walk_tree for this stuff is certainly not going to make the
compiler faster.  It would probably be better to remember these things
as they are created.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com