Patch to allow Ada to work with tree-ssa

[Mark Mitchell]

Richard Kenner wrote:

>    Adding a bit to a type node to say whether or not you need to do the 
>    expensive check (iterating through the FIELD_DECLs) is surely not gated 
>    by RTH's changes.  And, desirable no matter what you do eventually -- 
>    knowing which types have this uncommon feature cannot but help.
>
>Yes, I could kludge this with a flag and then fix it "properly" later, but
>since the proper fix is *already* something we want to do for other reasons
>and it'll be done within a day or two anyway, we can live with the
>performance issues for a couple of days: it's not worth the cost (mostly in
>terms of testing) to do it twice.
>  
>
You can't make a judgement about the cost because you do not bear all of 
them.  There are lots of GCC developers and users, and they get a say 
too.  It may not be desirable to you to do it twice, but it is, for 
example, quite *un*desirable to me. 

Leaving the compiler in a bad state for "a couple of days" while you 
attempt a fix hurts lots of people, even while it may help you.

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