RFA: Adding a location_t (or pointer) to tree_exp for 3.4 only.

[law@redhat.com]

In message <20031006202057.GB5019@redhat.com>, Richard Henderson writes:
 >On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 04:14:23PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
 >> A number of places continue to recurse on the arguments of a PLUS_EXPR
 >> but do not handle EXPR_WITH_FILE_LOCATION, for one thing.
 >
 >Please name such a place.  I'm asking for specifics here and
 >getting nothing from yall.
 >
 >Have yall *tried* WFL and have experimental evidence for how much
 >of a performance hit you get?  Given that we do extraordinarily
 >little reasoning with trees on mainline, I have a hard time imagining
 >that it has much affect at all.
Ugh.  WFL nodes have certain properties that are very undesirable.  Their
worst property is that you have to make sure you strip them away in all
the locations that expect to see the underlying expression -- which is very
prone to mistakes.

IMHO locus information belongs in the tree nodes themselves, not in a
wrapper node such as a WFL.

jeff