This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: My evil plans for the next few weekends
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>,Gcc Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 14:02:39 -0700
- Subject: Re: My evil plans for the next few weekends
- References: <email@example.com> <20050517174601.GA945@redhat.com>
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,
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.