On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote: > Well, I'm betting that you'll re-invent sth like 'tree' just don't > call it 'tree' ;) > You need to transparently refer to constants, SSA names and decls > (at least) as GIMPLE statement operands. You probably will make > a "gimple statement operand" base class. Well - that's a 'tree' ;)
Uses of constants and decls in expressions are why it's not obvious that those get a static type different from expressions (or at least, they probably do need a common base class). But my model of how "tree" should ideally be split up has expressions (maybe including decls) as a completely separate static type from types, and identifiers as yet another static type, none of those inheriting from a common base class "tree". -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
