On 3/12/07, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/12/07, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>         I thought that the Tuples conversion was suppose to address this
> in the long term.

The tuples conversion is only going to make things worse in the short term.

Doug, isn't there a lang_tree bit you can make available, and use it
to make the tree code field 9 bits wide?  I know this is also not
quite optimal,

It's going to have a big performance impact. To extract a 9-bit value,
the compiler will need to do a lot of masking every time it accesses
the TREE_CODE. We need the size of CODE to match the size of a
built-in integer type, which means we need to either expand the
structure or find 8 (!) free bits to shuffle.

but adding 24 bits like this is an invitation to
everyone to start using those bits, and before you know it we're stuck
with a larger-than-necessary tree structure... :-(

Yep, that's what got us where we are today. We said, "oh, we'll never
need more than 256 codes, let's use the other 24 bits for flags!"

 Cheers,
 Doug

Reply via email to