My evil plans for the next few weekends

[Richard Henderson]

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,
for instance.

> But you probably shouldn't have been doing that in the first place :)

Disagree.


r~