On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 20:32, Kazu Hirata wrote: > Hi Adnrew, > This looks like a better approach. How would we do your step 1? We > have var_ann and tree_ann in addition to stmt_ann. Shall we put a > type field at the beginning of tree_statement_list_node+stmt_ann_d so > that an annotation node can identify itself? (Since all these tree > annotations already have a field for annotation type, it's more like > appending tree_statement_list_node to stmt_ann_d.)
thats one option. Simply make the stmt_ann node the first thing in the tree_statement_list_node, and then it does look exactly like appending tree_statement_list_node to stmt_ann_d. Then the fields for GTY should all work out ok, and it is minimum impact. There doesn't appear to be any ordering implied in the tree_statement_list_node. Improvements could be made later once that is working when someone wants to figure out the vagarities of var_ann vs the stmt list node. Andrew
