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