[PATCH]: Move FIELD_DECL into it's own structure

[Mark Mitchell]

Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 14:56 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
>>>I like the idea of this patch, but I'm concerned about a few issues.
>>>
>>>One is that if we go a little way down this path, but not all the way, 
>>>we could end up truly tangled.  I don't know exactly what to do about 
>>>that, except ask you to promise to keep going for a while.  In other 
>>>words, I'm a little nervous about this being a weekend project that then 
>>>gets dropped after a weekend or two with no clear plan.
>>
>>If you don't believe i will finish what i start, or leave things in a
>>bad state, you are more than free to not accept the patch.  I'm really
>>not going to play this game.
> 
> 
> Also, i'm not sure how we'd be "truly tangled".
> 
> Even if i split three _DECL trees and leave the rest in
> tree_decl_non_common, how are we *worse* off?

Because we might not know how to move forward, or what the overarching 
design had been.  At present, we at least understand what we've got -- 
one giant overloaded union.

> So again, if you guys want me to commit to doing this in some sane time
> frame (IE < 1 year), then i need buy-in from other people. Otherwise, i
> can still do it, it's just going to take a while.

I understand.  I'm not asking you to commit to doing all the work; what 
I'm asking is that you contribute a design before doing any of the work, 
so that we have that, both for documentation and so that other people 
can help you.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304