Re: [PATCH, RFC]: Next stage1, refactoring: propagating rtx subclasses

[Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>]

Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> writes:
> On 04/25/2015 05:49 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> That seems pretty heavy-weight for LRA-local code.  Also, the long-term
>> plan is for INSN_LIST and rtx_insn to be in separate hierarchies,
>> at which point we'd have no alias-safe way to distinguish them.
> That's certainly what I think ought to happen.  INSN_LIST should turn 
> into a standard vector or forward list.  For the use cases in GCC, 
> either ought to be acceptable.

OK.  But I think whatever replaces INSN_LIST will still need to be GCed,
for uses such as nonlocal_goto_handler_labels.  My point was that in this
case we don't want a GCed list, so it'd be better to avoid INSN_LIST
altogether.

Thanks,
Richard