This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Rename tree_ann to tree_ann_t
- From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>, gcc-patches <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: 17 May 2004 18:48:51 -0400
- Subject: Re: Rename tree_ann to tree_ann_t
- References: <200405172240.i4HMeW2H010226@speedy.slc.redhat.com> <email@example.com>
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 18:37, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 18:40, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > In message <email@example.com>, Diego Novillo wri
> > tes:
> > >On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 18:04, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > >> In message <email@example.com>, Diego Novillo
> > > wri
> > >> tes:
> > >> >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.
> *shrug* And what's your proposal? Saying it's dumb will not fix it.
> We only have a single type, after all.
Wasn't it in plan at one point to examine the flags and stuff that we
have in each annotation and push those bits either into the common part,
or into the relevant node type? I thought the annotations were, for the
most part, a way of making you merge-from-mainline life tremendously