This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFA] Add language-dependent post-parser

From: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
To: Paul Hilfinger <hilfingr at gnat dot com>
Cc: drow at false dot org, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:26:55 -0500
Subject: Re: [RFA] Add language-dependent post-parser
References: <20040330092413.2E716F281D@nile.gnat.com> <20040330142656.GA18340@nevyn.them.org> <20040331080245.C139FF2B8B@nile.gnat.com> <20040331153004.GA29623@nevyn.them.org> <20040331153650.GA30084@nevyn.them.org> <406AF6AE.5040106@gnu.org> <20040331165810.GA32347@nevyn.them.org> <20040401104307.57A9EF2EA1@nile.gnat.com>

A few responses:
> >But I guess the point is, this is no more elegant than a second pass,
> >and whatever you implement I should probably use for C++ anyway so it
> >won't be an Ada-specific hook.  Does anyone else have an opinion?
I guess I don't share Daniel's distaste for multiple passes. Generally, I've found them a useful way to cleanly modularize sequences of transformations on an AST. In production compilers, the downside is performance, but as Daniel also says, this really is not an issue with the scale of parsing we do in GDB.

Ditto.

Andrew

References:
- Re: [RFA] Add language-dependent post-parser
  - From: Paul Hilfinger

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]