This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Rename tree_ann to tree_ann_t
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:40:32 -0600
- Subject: Re: Rename tree_ann to tree_ann_t
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <email@example.com>, Diego Novillo wri
>On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 18:04, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> In message <email@example.com>, Diego Novillo
>> >I would like to have a generic mechanism for this. We have an
>> >annotation scheme that sort of works but it's dynamically checked (See
>> >var_ann_d, stmt_ann_d, ssa_name_ann_d in tree-flow.h). Do you have any
>> >thoughts about this?
>> And there's absolutely no reason to do this... The set of annotations we
>> attach to nodes is completely determined by the type of the node the
>> annotation is attached to.
>No. All the nodes we attach annotations to are of type 'tree'. The
>checking is still dynamic.
And my point is that's rather dumb.