This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: Proposed location for variable sizes etc in ARRAY_REF and COMPONENT_REF

From: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, rth at redhat dot com,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:48:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Proposed location for variable sizes etc in ARRAY_REF and COMPONENT_REF
References: <10406230230.AA13616@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <200406230720.16492.stevenb@suse.de>

Steven Bosscher wrote:

On Wednesday 23 June 2004 04:30, Richard Kenner wrote:

I view having two tree nodes as a last resort.  Another option is to make a
hash table for the nodes and store the data there.  But I was looking for
something more direct and saw the annotation field that's currently unused
in those node types.

Why do you dislike new tree codes so much when basically everyone
is saying you should do so?


To me the obvious disadvantage of two tree nodes is that lots of
places have to remember to process both. And on the other hand I
see no quantifiable advantage in having two tree nodes.

References:
- Re: Proposed location for variable sizes etc in ARRAY_REF and COMPONENT_REF
  - From: Richard Kenner
- Re: Proposed location for variable sizes etc in ARRAY_REF and COMPONENT_REF
  - From: Steven Bosscher

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