On 03/11/2011 09:19 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 06:04:45AM -0800, Nathan Froyd wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 08:40:24AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 03/10/2011 11:23 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
The C++ FE expects that we can check the TREE_TYPE of anything that
appears as an expression, and uses IDENTIFIER_NODE to indicate a
dependent name within templates. If you want to break TREE_TYPE on
IDENTIFIER_NODE, you need to change the representation of dependent
names so that we can continue to use TREE_TYPE on all expressions.
I'm confused. Isn't this what the switching on IDENTIFIER_NODE in a
number of places is doing? (And any future places that g++/libstdc++
didn't catch will be an ICE.) Or are you saying that you don't want the
switching and IDENTIFIER_NODEs should retain TREE_TYPE unless and until
somebody comes forth with a better design?
The latter.
Or, alternatively, are you saying that blindly replacing TREE_TYPE with
REAL_IDENTIFIER_TYPE_VALUE is wrong, semantically speaking, as TREE_TYPE
and REAL_IDENTIFIER_TYPE_VALUE mean different things and should be kept
separate, even if they happen to share the same storage?
This too. I'm surprised that them sharing the same storage hasn't
broken anything yet.
And if so,
would moving that storage into lang_identifier be OK
Moving the uses of REAL_IDENTIFIER_TYPE_VALUE into lang_identifier or
even a separate hash table would be OK.
so long as the
requisite occurrences of TREE_TYPE are audited and the appropriate name
(REAL_IDENTIFIER_TYPE_VALUE vs. ...I don't know, EXPR_LIKE_TYPE) is
used?
No, I want to keep using TREE_TYPE. I was thinking of something more
like the DEPENDENT_NAME_EXPR that Joseph mentioned.
Jason
