Re: [C++ PATCH] Stage 2: Implement access check for template instantiation (2/n)

[Kriang Lerdsuwanakij <lerdsuwa at users dot sourceforge dot net>]

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