On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:14:07PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> That's Toms other approach with supporting multi-step dependencies. As I
> have tried to argue in the other thread, I think this idea is
> fundamentally broken and just hides real bugs, and I don't see why this
> would be different for this particular hash-map. If the value of this
> hash refers to a decl that isn't mentioned anywhere else except from this
> hash entry, then it has no meaning anymore, and hence shouldn't itself be
> part of the hash anymore.
You mean key or value? The value of course can mention various trees that
aren't referenced from anywhere else, and it has meaning.
Jakub
