[cfe-dev] Access specifiers and anonymous unions

[John McCall]

On May 31, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Abramo Bagnara wrote:

> Il 28/05/2010 19:53, John McCall ha scritto:
>>> 
>>> To represent correctly the above we might decide to have a node for
>>> access specifiers at the same level of other decls.
>> 
>> Yes, I've been wanting something like this for some time.
> 
> Would it be OK if we derive from Decl a new class modeling syntactic
> access specifiers occurring in the list of member specifiers of a C++
> class definition?
> 
> What about the name AccessSpecDecl ?

Decl actually has a lot of space overhead, and if we put these in the decl chain
we have to instantiate them, etc.  If we want to be really space-conserving, we
could just add an array of little structs to CXXRecordDecl::DefinitionData.
On the other hand, that would make them much more difficult to use;  I'm torn.

> Deriving from Decl already provides space for storing the access
> specifier (cannot be AS_none) and the corresponding source location.
> While at it, should we also provide a source location for the ':' ?

Probably not necessary.

> Am I right if I say that all code visiting CXXRecordDecl as a
> declaration context will automatically ignore this new class (which is
> actually a good thing)?

Well, if they were Decls, lookup would ignore them because they wouldn't
be NamedDecls, but they'd still show up in the lexical decl chain.  That's
probably fine.

John.