Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?

["Doug Gregor" <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>]

On 3/12/07, Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> wrote:
> That said, we
> all realize we are _not_ asking Doug to please re-implement the C++
> frontend to our design to fix this issue.  I'd be against that.

Thank you :)

> I'm hoping that might allow us to reduce the pressure enough so that
> we can fit back down into 8 bits, so as to avoid the memory size
> increase and (the unmeasured) slowdowns that would result.  Objective-
> C/C++ would slow down, but, faced with the slowdown that would be
> certain if we didn't do this, I don't see how we could not.  The
> benefit, all other languages would not, which is still important to us.
>
> The good news, in Objective-C 2.0, we only need 1 more tree code.
>
> If we did do this, we'd have to put in a mandate, no more new tree
> codes (unless you rewrite the Objective or C++ FE to stop using a code).

That's the trick... I don't see how we're going to get away with not
adding some more tree codes to the C++ FE to support C++0x features.

I'll see if I can implement the 9-bit solution, to see what the actual
performance impact is.

 Cheers,
 Doug