From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29249 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2004 16:25:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29225 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2004 16:25:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 2004 16:25:20 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i32GPJjl014155 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:25:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i32GPJj10800; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:25:19 -0500 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47822BA1; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:26:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <406D863F.9020704@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 16:25:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Hilfinger Cc: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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> In-Reply-To: <20040401104307.57A9EF2EA1@nile.gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2 > 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