Hi Adnrew, > > No, I would like to remove stmt_ann_t pointer from the stmt node, but > > not yet. All I want to do in this project is to put > > tree_statement_list_node and stmt_ann_d next to each other in memory > > while doing necessary adjustments in the compiler. Nothing more than > > that. > > does that buy us much?
I have to try, but it seems to be the lowest hanging fruit as far as the instruction chain infrastructure goes. > Then why not simply shorten this to: > > 1) put stmt annoation directly in the tree_statement_list_node > > 2) replace stmt_ann_t pointer in stmt with a pointer to its BSI, or the > tree_statement_list_node. This makes bsi_from_stmt O(1) immediately. > > 3) all stmts now have access to the stmt_ann directly in the > stmt_list_node, nothing changes except get_stmt_ann() returns the > address of the stmt ann within the tree_stmt_list_node. > > 4) For fake stmts you will have to allocate a fake tree_stmt_list_node > which isnt linked with anything, and set the bsi pointer to that... then > you have the annotation and access to it from the stmt. > > that seems like a quicker more direct approach then phasing it in > slowly, with less impact to anyone, and gives you immediate benefits. I > would think the patch to do this would be fairly small and > non-intrusive. 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.) Kazu Hirata
