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] Stage 2: Implement access check for template instantiation (2/n)


Giovanni Bajo wrote:

Better, I don't see a real reason for introducing yet another use of
TREE_CHAIN in GCC. The list of deferred access checks could be stored as a
Vec of ACCESS trees.

And now that I think of it, we could probably avoid having the new ACCESS
tree code at all, and just define a struct AccessCheck containing a couple
of tree pointers. Unless I am missing something.

I think it is a general consensus (at least in the C++ FE) that we should
stop using trees for things that we can do without (especially those we
don't survive till the middle-end).


The parser caches already lookup-ed qualified names in the token
stream together with their deferred access.  So this information could
be stored there besides the functions in semantics.c.  The decision to use
a tree node is to avoid adding an extra field to this token structure or
complicate the garbage collection of this structure.

--Kriang



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