From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16136 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2003 21:56:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16123 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 21:56:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 21:56:49 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 4E30AF2D87; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:56:48 -0500 (EST) To: Oliver.Kellogg@t-online.de, dewar@gnat.com Subject: Re: [gnat] reuse of ASTs already constructed Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Message-Id: <20030304215648.4E30AF2D87@nile.gnat.com> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 22:03:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00281.txt.bz2 > Ah, could you point me to those discussions? > Are they here on this list? > (I found searching for "gnat" difficult because there are > too many hits on "gnats".) No I am talking about internal discussions at ACT, dating back several years. We never pursued them because as I said, the gains seemed small compared to the effort, and other things have had higher priority. > Would you consider inclusion into GNAT if someone implemented this? Sure, but I would suggest that what is needed first is a very careful design which gets discussed before even one line of code is written (that's the procedure we always follow internally). The reason that this is particularly important is that there are lots of delicate interactions here.