On 9/21/11, dnovi...@google.com <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > http://codereview.appspot.com/5090041/diff/1/gcc/cp/pph-streamer-in.c > File gcc/cp/pph-streamer-in.c (right): > > http://codereview.appspot.com/5090041/diff/1/gcc/cp/pph-streamer-in.c#newcode2146 > gcc/cp/pph-streamer-in.c:2146: pph_read_namespace_chain (pph_stream > *stream, tree enclosing_namespace) > 2142 /* Read a chain of tree nodes from input block IB. DATA_IN > contains > 2143 tables and descriptors for the file being read. */ > 2144 > 2145 tree > 2146 pph_read_namespace_chain (pph_stream *stream, tree > enclosing_namespace) > > ENCLOSING_NAMESPACE needs documenting.
Copy/paste/edit failure. > Would it be better to have the original pph_read_chain() get > this argument? Not crazy about this duplication of code. There is no origional pph_read_chain. The pph_in_chain uses streamer_read_chain. I didn't think altering that API was the right thing to do for a pph-specific feature. > Same comment applies to the other two routines that the patch > duplicates. In the end, I decided that the duplication was likely to be worth it to avoid all the pointer passing and checking. Most trees streamed will not be direct children of namespaces. -- Lawrence Crowl
