This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [lto] PATCH: new CALL_EXPR constructors
It's only apparently two, because the "remove static-chain" change could
be sneaked in as obvious...
I've looked at the patch, and I think it's OK. In theory, I agree with
you that it might have been better if Sandra submitted the static-change
change separately, but, it's already done, and I don't see much value in
going back to break it out now. And, making global passes over the
compiler to change things is pretty painful, so I can see why Sandra
only wanted to make one pass and not two.
Sandra is using it only to keep track of things allocated together, and
an obstack can be good for that. I could volunteer to do it though.
It's better not to introduce new TREE_CHAIN usages. You may
put a FIXME comment saying that we may want to remove it.
I'm not sure that a FIXME here would be useful. The only alternative to
TREE_CHAIN, at the moment, would be a VEC, and that would use more
Sandra, this patch is OK. I'm looking forward to the next bit, whereMe too. Please do not misunderstand my criticism, I am trying to be
constructive but I can see that sometimes I failed.
you actually get to change the representation!