From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13966 invoked by alias); 3 May 2009 21:22:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 13958 invoked by uid 22791); 3 May 2009 21:22:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailout04.t-online.de (HELO mailout04.t-online.de) (194.25.134.18) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 May 2009 21:22:25 +0000 Received: from fwd00.aul.t-online.de by mailout04.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 1M0j81-00050h-00; Sun, 03 May 2009 23:21:41 +0200 Received: from [192.168.178.27] (SrBeY4ZJZh4fGZctzOkAj7OtvCZzKioG7LT2fMobsECN1eH-tpYftNsKeGKuIXbgny@[84.156.205.198]) by fwd00.aul.t-online.de with esmtp id 1M0j7t-1kZqIi0; Sun, 3 May 2009 23:21:33 +0200 Subject: Re: [gnat] reuse of ASTs already constructed From: oliver.kellogg@t-online.de (Oliver Kellogg) Reply-To: okellogg@users.sourceforge.net To: Robert Dewar Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <49FE09D9.4090702@adacore.com> References: <1239557374.7565.37.camel@tidbit.site> <1240083309.4554.45.camel@tidbit.site> <1240175954.4554.50.camel@tidbit.site> <1241385654.4763.38.camel@tidbit.site> <49FE09D9.4090702@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 21:22:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1241386066.4763.42.camel@tidbit.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 Sorry if I'm slow in understanding: Are you saying that introducing an extra field would cause problems (memory or other) ? Do you think it would be okay to use the Str3 field, then? Thanks. Robert Dewar wrote: > Oliver Kellogg wrote: > > On 2009-04-19, at 23:19 +0200, Oliver Kellogg wrote: > >> [...] > >> > >> How about not doing the name expansion in-place but rather > >> storing the expanded name in an extra node field? > > > > I haven't received any reaction on this question yet. > > Perhaps I could reuse the Str3 field instead? (I haven't looked > > into the depths of its usage yet.) > > I don't see any room in the node for this extra field ... >