This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
My evil plans for the next few weekends
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: 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 13:08:29 -0400
- Subject: My evil plans for the next few weekends
While my weekdays are booked with real stuff (structure aliasing,
array_ref/mem_ref, dependence, blah blah blah), the next couple weekends
i have plans to try to do some serious tree seperation.
My current evil plan is to try to seperate the really distinct _DECL
nodes into distinct DECL trees, sharing only the minimum they need to be
DECL's (UID, etc).
This is probably going to hurt, and will require things like using
FIELD_DECL_<blah> macros for FIELD_DECL's, TYPE_DECL_<blah> macros for
TYPE_DECL's, etc, instead of using DECL_<blah> on both for some fields.
Before i go down this path (because it is a long hard road), does anyone
have any serious objection to having to use properly named macros to
access the trees? This will probably add more code in some places that
trees all DECL's the same, since they won't be the same anymore, except
for the really really shared bits (again, UID comes to mind).
But you probably shouldn't have been doing that in the first place :)