Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > While my weekdays are booked with real stuff (structure aliasing, > array_ref/mem_ref, dependence, blah blah blah), the next couple weekends > i have plans to try to do some serious tree seperation. > > My current evil plan is to try to seperate the really distinct _DECL > nodes into distinct DECL trees, sharing only the minimum they need to be > DECL's (UID, etc). > > 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.
For the record, I support this plan, including the more specific accessor macro names. zw
