2015-09-18 18:31 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>: > On 09/18/2015 02:19 AM, Kai Tietz wrote: >> >> Hi Jason, >> >> Sounds like an interesting idea. Do have already a specific approach in >> mind? >> >> My idea might be just hard to model, as we aren't sure we walked >> before the complete chain. Due cp_fold is caching, we won't try to >> fold an expression a second time, but we don't cover all EXPRs in >> cp_fold, which makes it hard to tell, if we ended up walking the >> complete expression-tree, or ended on an unknown expression. >> So we could add to cp_fold an additional return-value, which indicates >> if we ended with an unknown expression (means default statement). >> This we could use later on to decided if we need to walk sub-tree, or >> not. Not sure if that is best approach, but it could help to avoid >> some double runs. > > > That makes sense, but maybe cp_fold should handle all expressions?
This is for sure an option, but something to be checked with successor of this task. > >> 2015-09-17 8:10 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>: >>> >>> I think we want to clear *walk_subtrees a lot more often in cp_fold_r; as >>> it >>> is, for most expressions we end up calling cp_fold on the >>> full-expression, >>> then uselessly on the subexpressions after we already folded the >>> containing >>> expression. > >
