From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26459 invoked by alias); 7 May 2011 19:42:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 26450 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2011 19:42:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 May 2011 19:41:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2D6CB0231; Sat, 7 May 2011 21:41:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bDjqZddn98Mp; Sat, 7 May 2011 21:41:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (bon31-9-83-155-120-49.fbx.proxad.net [83.155.120.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6309ECB016C; Sat, 7 May 2011 21:41:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: Jason Merrill Subject: Re: copy_tree_r and STATEMENT_LIST (was Re: C++ PATCHes relating to c++/48834, c++/40975 (array new)) Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 19:52:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Richard Henderson References: <4DBF2909.4050207@redhat.com> <201105050057.21056.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <4DC2AFA7.8040104@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4DC2AFA7.8040104@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201105072141.56311.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00584.txt.bz2 > It seems pretty straightforward to me that a function named copy_tree_r > should copy everything that isn't always shared (like decls). It > already copies SAVE_EXPR, after all; how is copying STATEMENT_LIST going > to cause trouble in a context where copying SAVE_EXPR isn't? OK, this can make sense, callers should handle special nodes like SAVE_EXPR, TARGET_EXPR, STATEMENT_LIST, etc themselves. In light of this, they need to be audited and adjusted, as you did already a few days ago. So I think I can live with your 40975-3.patch in the end. Thanks for your patience. -- Eric Botcazou