Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > I am modifying my code so that their is a preprocessor flag, > STUPID_TYPE_SYSTEM that either writes or does not write the redundant > type nodes.
I think the macro name is needlessly negative, but I think the idea is fine. Could we just say something like EXPLICIT_TYPE_INFORMATION instead? > I would suggest that we ask those with patches to strengthen the type > system to contribute those patches to the lto branch and for diego (who > I believe has the last working type checker) to contribute that type > checker to the lto branch. I agree. I think it's very desirable for the type-checker to be a separate pass so that we can run it at various points in the compilation to check for consistency; that will help us isolate problems. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
