Hello,
> > > This looks like a better approach. How would we do your step 1? We
> > > have var_ann and tree_ann in addition to stmt_ann. Shall we put a
> > > type field at the beginning of tree_statement_list_node+stmt_ann_d so
> > > that an annotation node can identify itself? (Since all these tree
> > > annotations already have a field for annotation type, it's more like
> > > appending tree_statement_list_node to stmt_ann_d.)
> >
> > I would go just for having
> >
> > union
> > {
> > struct stmt_list_node *container; /* For gimple statements. */
> > tree_ann_t ann; /* For everything else. */
> > }
>
> Err, I don't see how to tell the garbage collector about this without
> a type field. We cannot rely on TREE_CODE (stmt) because CALL_EXPR
> may appear by itself or as an rhs of MODIFY_EXPR.
in the later case, they don't have annotations? But OK, there may be
some other case I am forgetting now, so perhaps making it safe and
having a type field is a better idea.
Zdenek
