From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Paul Hilfinger <hilfingr@gnat.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Add language-dependent post-parser
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:36:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040331153650.GA30084@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040331153004.GA29623@nevyn.them.org>
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 10:30:04AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 03:02:45AM -0500, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
> >
> > Daniel,
> >
> > > I don't see why you can't do it, for instance, here:
> > > simple_exp : simple_exp '(' arglist ')'
> > > {
> > > write_exp_elt_opcode (OP_FUNCALL);
> > > write_exp_elt_longcst ($3);
> > > /* check arguments */
> > > write_exp_elt_opcode (OP_FUNCALL);
> > > }
> > > ;
> >
> > > You'd have to wiggle the expression machinery to give you back the
> > > expression node for the function name, probably by making the
> > > write_exp_* functions return a pointer. But that's less intrusive and
> > > more efficient than adding a second pass.
> >
> > Yes, that's exactly how I'd LIKE to do it. And I would, but for one
> > miserable little fact: the expression at this point is in POSTFIX
> > form. So, for example, I can't use evaluate_type or the evaluate_exp
> > member of exp_descriptor, both of which work on PREFIX form.
>
> How much work would it be to duplicate and prefixify them, then?
> prefixify_subexp has the right interface already; if you write out the
> OP_FUNCALL, you could then call a function which returns a new struct
> expression in prefix form containing just the call and its arguments.
> It would just need to allocate enough memory (could be generous about
> it and just use the size of the original expression), call
> prefixify_subexp, and fiddle out->nelts.
>
> OK, it's not so _efficient_, but... it could be made efficient if
> someone overhauls the representation at some point.
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?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-31 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-30 9:24 Paul Hilfinger
2004-03-30 14:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-31 8:02 ` Paul Hilfinger
2004-03-31 15:30 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-31 15:36 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2004-03-31 16:49 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-31 16:58 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-04-01 10:43 ` Paul Hilfinger
2004-04-02 16:25 ` Andrew Cagney
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-03-19 0:09 Paul Hilfinger
2004-03-04 11:33 ` Paul Hilfinger
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-04 22:29 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-05 8:15 ` Paul Hilfinger
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Paul Hilfinger
2004-04-02 16:33 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-04-03 12:05 ` Paul Hilfinger
2004-04-07 9:32 ` Paul Hilfinger
2004-04-09 22:40 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-04-10 22:12 ` Paul Hilfinger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040331153650.GA30084@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=hilfingr@gnat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox