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~
