Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> writes:
> I have no experience with changing tree nodes but I wouldn't be
> surprised if there were assumptions baked into code that made it
> a non-trivial exercise.
>
> There's also lots of sharing of data in GCC so I'm not sure it
> makes sense for an identifier to have an associated location.
> I imagine two different entities with the same name might share
> the same identifier. It should be easy to verify. For example
> with this test case:
>
> void f (int i) { }
> void g (int i) { }
>
> and a breakpoint in finish_decl() in c/c-decl.c, the debugger
> will stop twice, once for the i in f and then again for the one
> in g. They are two different arguments (with different addresses)
> but they both have the same DECL_NAME().
I see. So perhaps this isn't the best way to go about implementing
attribute locations. What do you think would be a better way? Perhaps
using a DECL_MINIMAL for attributes?
Thanks,
Asher
--
By necessity, by proclivity, and by delight, we all quote. In fact, it is as
difficult to appropriate the thoughts of others as it is to invent.
-- R. Emerson
-- Quoted from a fortune cookie program
(whose author claims, "Actually, stealing IS easier.")
[to which I reply, "You think it's easy for me to
misconstrue all these misquotations?!?" Ed.]
--------
I prefer to send and receive mail encrypted. Please send me your
public key, and if you do not have my public key, please let me
know. Thanks.
GPG fingerprint: 38F3 975C D173 4037 B397 8095 D4C9 C4FC 5460 8E68
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
