This is the mail archive of the 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: My evil plans for the next few weekends

Richard Henderson wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 01:08:29PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:

Depending on what field, yes, I'll object.  There should be a "minimal
decl" for which the "normal" decl stuff should belong to.  DECL_ALIGN,
for instance.

But you probably shouldn't have been doing that in the first place :)

I'm strongly in support of doing what Daniel wants to do. I've been wanting to do it since forever.

In fact, the only things that are probably common to *all* DECLs are (a) a name, and (b) a source position, and (c) a scope.

DECL_ALIGN certainly doesn't apply to namespaces, or enumeration constants, or type declarations. (Well, it might presently apply to type declarations, but it shouldn't; if someone declares an aligned type that should show up on the type.) I'm not sure if DECL_ALIGN applies to functions; maybe it could.

It's perfectly reasonable to have "typed_decl" as a derived class of "decl" which contains a type; then "var_decl" and "function_decl" would be derived from that, for example.

Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304

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