This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: My evil plans for the next few weekends
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: 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 10:46:01 -0700
- Subject: Re: My evil plans for the next few weekends
- References: <email@example.com>
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 01:08:29PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 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.
Can you be more specific on which fields this will be true for?
> 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).
Depending on what field, yes, I'll object. There should be a "minimal
decl" for which the "normal" decl stuff should belong to. DECL_ALIGN,
> But you probably shouldn't have been doing that in the first place :)