On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 2:19 PM Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Montag, dem 21.07.2025 um 04:29 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:
> > On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 4:41 AM Martin Uecker wrote:
> > But first, as of this time, all of our efforts over the past several
> > months to get an agreement on a syntax suita
Am Montag, dem 21.07.2025 um 04:29 -0700 schrieb Bill Wendling:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 4:41 AM Martin Uecker wrote:
> > I think the question is not whether this could be done somehow,
> > but whether it should. Why design a language feature that requires
> > storing tokens and parsing it outsi
On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 4:41 AM Martin Uecker wrote:
> I think the question is not whether this could be done somehow,
> but whether it should. Why design a language feature that requires
> storing tokens and parsing it outside the original context?
Fine, and I'm willing to have this discussion,
I think the question is not whether this could be done somehow,
but whether it should. Why design a language feature that requires
storing tokens and parsing it outside the original context?
For an attribute this may still be acceptable, but we need the same
thing for array sizes in C. For
From: Bill Wendling
Also, this code doesn't go further than parsing. I.e., it doesn't generate the
internal gimple code that accesses the struct fields. The code is meant to show
that it *is* possible to perform a delayed parsing with no "double parsing" and
still be performant.
Minor Nomenclatu
