From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24586 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2004 21:24:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24579 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2004 21:24:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out3.apple.com) (17.254.13.22) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Aug 2004 21:24:09 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7GLPudW025362 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay2.apple.com (relay2.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.12) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:24:08 -0700 Received: from [17.201.24.57] (polskifiat.apple.com [17.201.24.57]) by relay2.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7GLO6jx006174; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:24:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <918394DF-EFB7-11D8-8323-000393673036@apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <9A3F15F4-EFCA-11D8-ACB2-000393673036@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mark Mitchell , GCC Patches , Zack Weinberg From: Ziemowit Laski Subject: Re: Re: Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:28:00 -0000 To: "Joseph S. Myers" X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01136.txt.bz2 On 16 Aug, 2004, at 13.53, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Ziemowit Laski wrote: > >> This is the part that I find problematic. :-( The work contained in >> the >> two patches I posted last night, in addition to a couple of patches I >> committed previously (and a few more I have yet to offer) is all part >> of my ObjC++ integration (approved by the Steering Committee for 3.5 >> integration). Furthermore, these bits already live in >> objc-improvements-branch, available for the bootstrapping pleasure of >> all. > > If you don't like the proposed split, one you could try would be > separating out the patch to stop the ObjC front end depending on > particular structures for declarators, which is the part of the merge > currently blocking a replacement of those structures. Yeah, I've been sitting here and ruminating about how to break up this behemoth. As you may imagine, the various features are not only deeply intertwined, but have not ever had a separate existence, since all of this stuff was being worked on simultaneously on objc-improvements-branch.... :-( > I have looked at the C front end changes and believe that they only > affect > ObjC, and have no comments on them beyond those Zack has made, but > don't > think changes only affecting ObjC are for me to review. Does this mean that, after I address the issues raised by Zack, my patch would be OK to commit? :-) Not entirely sure how to parse your message here... > > Where is the evidence that this is, or is likely to be, of any > measurable > performance difference, compiling any source code whatever? It looks > like > premature micro-optimization without such evidence. I can certainly remove the c_dialect_objc() conjunct if you like. Thanks, --Zem -------------------------------------------------------------- Ziemowit Laski 1 Infinite Loop, MS 301-2K Mac OS X Compiler Group Cupertino, CA USA 95014-2083 Apple Computer, Inc. +1.408.974.6229 Fax .5477