This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++: Tag transparent binding contour
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 19 Sep 2003 10:34:13 +0200
- Subject: Re: C++: Tag transparent binding contour
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <m3brxfcftc.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><wvlr86brtcz.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com><m3llwj9jlk.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><wvladczrruo.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com><m3pthxjzsz.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><1063956353.2614.276.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com>
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
| On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 19:07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> writes:
| >
| > | On 03 Jun 2003 19:06:15 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
| > |
| > | > Thank you. Is it OK to describe the binding contour created by
| > | > maybe_push_cleanup_level as just a bare sk_block? Or do you think it
| > | > is necessary to introduce a separate scope_kind enumerator? (I would
| > | > say sk_block is sufficient),
| > |
| > | Well, it isn't a block. It's transparent to all names. If you're working
| > | to distinguish different types of binding levels, this seems worth
| > | distinguishing.
|
| The right thing to do would be to get rid of these fake post-label
| binding levels. The binding level structures should mirror the scopes
| required by the language, and there is no new scope required after a
| label.
Thanks. Do you have a suggestion for dealing with the (pseudo-)scope created
for EH purposes? If I understand Jason correctly, we need a region to
contain only EH stuff and no names. sk_cleanup (following Jason's
previous adice) seems to work -- but I agree with you that it would be
nicer if we didn't need it.
-- Gaby