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: [C++ PATCH] Fix 14179 - compile-time

From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
To: "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>,"Nathan Sidwell" <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:50:03 +0200
Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix 14179 - compile-time
References: <002101c49d80$ba565010$d14e2597@bagio> <414EA07E.3000809@codesourcery.com> <414F2BCE.2090501@codesourcery.com>

Mark Mitchell wrote:

> I would like to hold off on this patch.  Like Nathan says, this is the
> first good evidence I've seen that implementing operator-precedence
> parsing might be a measureable win on real code.  If you, or Nathan,
> or I, or Zack, or somebody gets to implementing that, then that's
> probably the best way to go.  If not, then we should consider your
> patch, as it really does make a  big difference.

I am not sure I understand why we should holding this off meanwhile. Surely we
can remove this dozen of lines of code when/if the correct solution is
implemented.

> Would you mind
> reminding me about this patch when we get ready to make the release
> branch, assuming we've not yet implemented the operator-precedence
> thing?

Sure, I will try to.

Giovanni Bajo

References:
- [C++ PATCH] Fix 14179 - compile-time
  - From: Giovanni Bajo
- Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix 14179 - compile-time
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix 14179 - compile-time
  - From: Mark Mitchell

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