CbC/CbC_gcc: gcc/ada/exp_unst.ads comparison

comparison gcc/ada/exp_unst.ads @ 111:04ced10e8804

gcc 7

author	kono
date	Fri, 27 Oct 2017 22:46:09 +0900
parents
children	84e7813d76e9

comparison

equal deleted inserted replaced

-:561a7518be6b
+:04ced10e8804
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+--                                                                          --
+--                         GNAT COMPILER COMPONENTS                         --
+--                                                                          --
+--                             E X P _ U N S T                              --
+--                                                                          --
+--                                 S p e c                                  --
+--                                                                          --
+--          Copyright (C) 2014-2017, Free Software Foundation, Inc.         --
+--                                                                          --
+-- GNAT is free software;  you can  redistribute it  and/or modify it under --
+-- terms of the  GNU General Public License as published  by the Free Soft- --
+-- ware  Foundation;  either version 3,  or (at your option) any later ver- --
+-- sion.  GNAT is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITH- --
+-- OUT ANY WARRANTY;  without even the  implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY --
+-- or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License --
+-- for  more details.  You should have  received  a copy of the GNU General --
+-- Public License  distributed with GNAT; see file COPYING3.  If not, go to --
+-- http://www.gnu.org/licenses for a complete copy of the license.          --
+--                                                                          --
+-- GNAT was originally developed  by the GNAT team at  New York University. --
+-- Extensive contributions were provided by Ada Core Technologies Inc.      --
+--                                                                          --
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+--  Expand routines for unnesting subprograms
+with Table;
+with Types; use Types;
+package Exp_Unst is
+--  -----------------
+--  -- The Problem --
+--  -----------------
+--  Normally, nested subprograms in the source result in corresponding
+--  nested subprograms in the resulting tree. We then expect the back end
+--  to handle such nested subprograms, including all cases of uplevel
+--  references. For example, the GCC back end can do this relatively easily
+--  since GNU C (as an extension) allows nested functions with uplevel
+--  references, and implements an appropriate static chain approach to
+--  dealing with such uplevel references.
+--  However, we also want to be able to interface with back ends that do
+--  not easily handle such uplevel references. One example is the back end
+--  that translates the tree into standard C source code. In the future,
+--  other back ends might need the same capability (e.g. a back end that
+--  generated LLVM intermediate code).
+--  We could imagine simply handling such references in the appropriate
+--  back end. For example the back end that generates C could recognize
+--  nested subprograms and rig up some way of translating them, e.g. by
+--  making a static-link source level visible.
+--  Rather than take that approach, we prefer to do a semantics-preserving
+--  transformation on the GNAT tree, that eliminates the problem before we
+--  hand the tree over to the back end. There are two reasons for preferring
+--  this approach:
+--     First: the work needs only to be done once for all affected back ends
+--     and we can remain within the semantics of the tree. The front end is
+--     full of tree transformations, so we have all the infrastructure for
+--     doing transformations of this type.
+--     Second: given that the transformation will be semantics-preserving,
+--     we can still used the standard GCC back end to build code from it.
+--     This means we can easily run our full test suite to verify that the
+--     transformations are indeed semantics preserving. It is a lot more
+--     work to thoroughly test the output of specialized back ends.
+--  Looking at the problem, we have three situations to deal with. Note
+--  that in these examples, we use all lower case, since that is the way
+--  the internal tree is cased.
+--     First, cases where there are no uplevel references, for example
+--       procedure case1 is
+--          function max (m, n : Integer) return integer is
+--          begin
+--             return integer'max (m, n);
+--          end max;
+--          ...
+--       end case1;
+--     Second, cases where there are explicit uplevel references.
+--       procedure case2 (b : integer) is
+--          procedure Inner (bb : integer);
+--
+--          procedure inner2 is
+--          begin
+--            inner(5);
+--          end;
+--
+--          x  : integer := 77;
+--          y  : constant integer := 15 * 16;
+--          rv : integer := 10;
+--
+--          procedure inner (bb : integer) is
+--          begin
+--             x := rv + y + bb + b;
+--          end;
+--
+--       begin
+--          inner2;
+--       end case2;
+--     In this second example, B, X, RV are uplevel referenced. Y is not
+--     considered as an uplevel reference since it is a static constant
+--     where references are replaced by the value at compile time.
+--   Third, cases where there are implicit uplevel references via types
+--   whose bounds depend on locally declared constants or variables:
+--       function case3 (x, y : integer) return boolean is
+--          subtype dynam is integer range x .. y + 3;
+--          subtype static is integer range 42 .. 73;
+--          xx : dynam := y;
+--
+--          type darr is array (dynam) of Integer;
+--          type darec is record
+--             A : darr;
+--             B : integer;
+--          end record;
+--          darecv : darec;
+--
+--          function inner (b : integer) return boolean is
+--          begin
+--            return b in dynam and then darecv.b in static;
+--          end inner;
+--
+--       begin
+--         return inner (42) and then inner (xx * 3 - y * 2);
+--       end case3;
+--
+--     In this third example, the membership test implicitly references the
+--     the bounds of Dynam, which both involve uplevel references.
+--  ------------------
+--  -- The Solution --
+--  ------------------
+--  Looking at the three cases above, the first case poses no problem at
+--  all. Indeed the subprogram could have been declared at the outer level
+--  (perhaps changing the name). But this style is quite common as a way
+--  of limiting the scope of a local procedure called only within the outer
+--  procedure. We could move it to the outer level (with a name change if
+--  needed), but we don't bother. We leave it nested, and the back end just
+--  translates it as though it were not nested.
+--  In general we leave nested procedures nested, rather than trying to move
+--  them to the outer level (the back end may do that, e.g. as part of the
+--  translation to C, but we don't do it in the tree itself). This saves a
+--  LOT of trouble in terms of visibility and semantics.
+--  But of course we have to deal with the uplevel references. The idea is
+--  to rewrite these nested subprograms so that they no longer have any such
+--  uplevel references, so by the time they reach the back end, they all are
+--  case 1 (no uplevel references) and thus easily handled.
+--  To deal with explicit uplevel references (case 2 above), we proceed with
+--  the following steps:
+--    All entities marked as being uplevel referenced are marked as aliased
+--    since they will be accessed indirectly via an activation record as
+--    described below.
+--    An activation record is created containing system address values
+--    for each uplevel referenced entity in a given scope. In the example
+--    given before, we would have:
+--      type AREC1T is record
+--         b  : Address;
+--         x  : Address;
+--         rv : Address;
+--      end record;
+--      type AREC1PT is access all AREC1T;
+--      AREC1  : aliased AREC1T;
+--      AREC1P : constant AREC1PT := AREC1'Access;
+--   The fields of AREC1 are set at the point the corresponding entity
+--   is declared (immediately for parameters).
+--   Note: the 1 in all these names is a unique index number. Different
+--   scopes requiring different ARECnT declarations will have different
+--   values of n to ensure uniqueness.
+--   Note: normally the field names in the activation record match the
+--   name of the entity. An exception is when the entity is declared in
+--   a declare block, in which case we append the entity number, to avoid
+--   clashes between the same name declared in different declare blocks.
+--   For all subprograms nested immediately within the corresponding scope,
+--   a parameter AREC1F is passed, and all calls to these routines have
+--   AREC1P added as an additional formal.
+--   Now within the nested procedures, any reference to an uplevel entity
+--   xxx is replaced by typ'Deref(AREC1.xxx) where typ is the type of the
+--   reference.
+--   Note: the reason that we use Address as the component type in the
+--   declaration of AREC1T is that we may create this type before we see
+--   the declaration of this type.
+--   The following shows example 2 above after this translation:
+--       procedure case2x (b : aliased Integer) is
+--          type AREC1T is record
+--             b  : Address;
+--             x  : Address;
+--             rv : Address;
+--          end record;
+--
+--          type AREC1PT is access all AREC1T;
+--
+--          AREC1 : aliased AREC1T;
+--          AREC1P : constant AREC1PT := AREC1'Access;
+--
+--          AREC1.b := b'Address;
+--
+--          procedure inner (bb : integer; AREC1F : AREC1PT);
+--
+--          procedure inner2 (AREC1F : AREC1PT) is
+--          begin
+--            inner(5, AREC1F);
+--          end;
+--
+--          x  : aliased integer := 77;
+--          AREC1.x := X'Address;
+--
+--          y  : constant Integer := 15 * 16;
+--
+--          rv : aliased Integer;
+--          AREC1.rv := rv'Address;
+--
+--          procedure inner (bb : integer; AREC1F : AREC1PT) is
+--          begin
+--             Integer'Deref(AREC1F.x) :=
+--               Integer'Deref(AREC1F.rv) + y + b + Integer_Deref(AREC1F.b);
+--          end;
+--
+--       begin
+--          inner2 (AREC1P);
+--       end case2x;
+--  And now the inner procedures INNER2 and INNER have no uplevel references
+--  so they have been reduced to case 1, which is the case easily handled by
+--  the back end. Note that the generated code is not strictly legal Ada
+--  because of the assignments to AREC1 in the declarative sequence, but the
+--  GNAT tree always allows such mixing of declarations and statements, so
+--  the back end must be prepared to handle this in any case.
+--  Case 3 where we have uplevel references to types is a bit more complex.
+--  That would especially be the case if we did a full transformation that
+--  completely eliminated such uplevel references as we did for case 2. But
+--  instead of trying to do that, we rewrite the subprogram so that the code
+--  generator can easily detect and deal with these uplevel type references.
+--  First we distinguish two cases
+--    Static types are one of the two following cases:
+--      Discrete types whose bounds are known at compile time. This is not
+--      quite the same as what is tested by Is_OK_Static_Subtype, in that
+--      it allows compile time known values that are not static expressions.
+--      Composite types, whose components are (recursively) static types.
+--    Dynamic types are one of the two following cases:
+--      Discrete types with at least one bound not known at compile time.
+--      Composite types with at least one component that is (recursively)
+--      a dynamic type.
+--    Uplevel references to static types are not a problem, the front end
+--    or the code generator fetches the bounds as required, and since they
+--    are compile time known values, this value can just be extracted and
+--    no actual uplevel reference is required.
+--    Uplevel references to dynamic types are a potential problem, since
+--    such references may involve an implicit access to a dynamic bound,
+--    and this reference is an implicit uplevel access.
+--    To fully unnest such references would be messy, since we would have
+--    to create local copies of the dynamic types involved, so that the
+--    front end or code generator could generate an explicit uplevel
+--    reference to the bound involved. Rather than do that, we set things
+--    up so that this situation can be easily detected and dealt with when
+--    there is an implicit reference to the bounds.
+--    What we do is to always generate a local constant for any dynamic
+--    bound in a dynamic subtype xx with name xx_FIRST or xx_LAST. The one
+--    case where we can skip this is where the bound is already a constant.
+--    E.g. in the third example above, subtype dynam is expanded as
+--      dynam_LAST : constant Integer := y + 3;
+--      subtype dynam is integer range x .. dynam_LAST;
+--    Now if type dynam is uplevel referenced (as it is in this case), then
+--    the bounds x and dynam_LAST are marked as uplevel references
+--    so that appropriate entries are made in the activation record. Any
+--    explicit reference to such a bound in the front end generated code
+--    will be handled by the normal uplevel reference mechanism which we
+--    described above for case 2. For implicit references by a back end
+--    that needs to unnest things, any such implicit reference to one of
+--    these bounds can be replaced by an appropriate reference to the entry
+--    in the activation record for xx_FIRST or xx_LAST. Thus the back end
+--    can eliminate the problematical uplevel reference without the need to
+--    do the heavy tree modification to do that at the code expansion level.
+--  Looking at case 3 again, here is the normal -gnatG expanded code
+--  function case3 (x : integer; y : integer) return boolean is
+--     dynam_LAST : constant integer := y {+} 3;
+--     subtype dynam is integer range x .. dynam_LAST;
+--     subtype static is integer range 42 .. 73;
+--
+--     [constraint_error when
+--       not (y in x .. dynam_LAST)
+--       "range check failed"]
+--
+--     xx : dynam := y;
+--
+--     type darr is array (x .. dynam_LAST) of integer;
+--     type darec is record
+--        a : darr;
+--        b : integer;
+--     end record;
+--     [type TdarrB is array (x .. dynam_LAST range <>) of integer]
+--     freeze TdarrB []
+--     darecv : darec;
+--
+--     function inner (b : integer) return boolean is
+--     begin
+--        return b in x .. dynam_LAST and then darecv.b in 42 .. 73;
+--     end inner;
+--  begin
+--     return inner (42) and then inner (xx {*} 3 {-} y {*} 2);
+--  end case3;
+--  Note: the actual expanded code has fully qualified names so for
+--  example function inner is actually function case3__inner. For now
+--  we ignore that detail to clarify the examples.
+--  Here we see that some of the bounds references are expanded by the
+--  front end, so that we get explicit references to y or dynam_Last. These
+--  cases are handled by the normal uplevel reference mechanism described
+--  above for case 2. This is the case for the constraint check for the
+--  initialization of xx, and the range check in function inner.
+--  But the reference darecv.b in the return statement of function
+--  inner has an implicit reference to the bounds of dynam, since to
+--  compute the location of b in the record, we need the length of a.
+--  Here is the full translation of the third example:
+--       function case3x (x, y : integer) return boolean is
+--          type AREC1T is record
+--             x          : Address;
+--             dynam_LAST : Address;
+--          end record;
+--
+--          type AREC1PT is access all AREC1T;
+--
+--          AREC1 : aliased AREC1T;
+--          AREC1P : constant AREC1PT := AREC1'Access;
+--
+--          AREC1.x := x'Address;
+--
+--          dynam_LAST : constant integer := y {+} 3;
+--          AREC1.dynam_LAST := dynam_LAST'Address;
+--          subtype dynam is integer range x .. dynam_LAST;
+--          xx : dynam := y;
+--
+--          [constraint_error when
+--            not (y in x .. dynam_LAST)
+--            "range check failed"]
+--
+--          subtype static is integer range 42 .. 73;
+--
+--          type darr is array (x .. dynam_LAST) of Integer;
+--          type darec is record
+--             A : darr;
+--             B : integer;
+--          end record;
+--          darecv : darec;
+--
+--          function inner (b : integer; AREC1F : AREC1PT) return boolean is
+--          begin
+--             return b in x .. Integer'Deref(AREC1F.dynam_LAST)
+--               and then darecv.b in 42 .. 73;
+--          end inner;
+--
+--       begin
+--         return inner (42, AREC1P) and then inner (xx * 3, AREC1P);
+--       end case3x;
+--  And now the back end when it processes darecv.b will access the bounds
+--  of darecv.a by referencing the d and dynam_LAST fields of AREC1P.
+-----------------------------
+-- Multiple Nesting Levels --
+-----------------------------
+--  In our examples so far, we have only nested to a single level, but the
+--  scheme generalizes to multiple levels of nesting and in this section we
+--  discuss how this generalization works.
+--  Consider this example with two nesting levels
+--  To deal with elimination of uplevel references, we follow the same basic
+--  approach described above for case 2, except that we need an activation
+--  record at each nested level. Basically the rule is that any procedure
+--  that has nested procedures needs an activation record. When we do this,
+--  the inner activation records have a pointer (uplink) to the immediately
+--  enclosing activation record, the normal arrangement of static links. The
+--  following shows the full translation of this fourth case.
+--     function case4x (x : integer) return integer is
+--        type AREC1T is record
+--           v1 : Address;
+--        end record;
+--
+--        type AREC1PT is access all AREC1T;
+--
+--        AREC1 : aliased AREC1T;
+--        AREC1P : constant AREC1PT := AREC1'Access;
+--
+--        v1 : integer := x;
+--        AREC1.v1 := v1'Address;
+--
+--        function inner1 (y : integer; AREC1F : AREC1PT) return integer is
+--           type AREC2T is record
+--              AREC1U : AREC1PT;
+--              v2     : Address;
+--           end record;
+--
+--           type AREC2PT is access all AREC2T;
+--
+--           AREC2 : aliased AREC2T;
+--           AREC2P : constant AREC2PT := AREC2'Access;
+--
+--           AREC2.AREC1U := AREC1F;
+--
+--           v2 : integer := Integer'Deref (AREC1F.v1) {+} 1;
+--           AREC2.v2 := v2'Address;
+--
+--           function inner2
+--              (z : integer; AREC2F : AREC2PT) return integer
+--           is
+--           begin
+--              return integer(z {+}
+--                             Integer'Deref (AREC2F.AREC1U.v1) {+}
+--                             Integer'Deref (AREC2F.v2).all);
+--           end inner2;
+--        begin
+--           return integer(y {+}
+--                            inner2 (Integer'Deref (AREC1F.v1), AREC2P));
+--        end inner1;
+--     begin
+--        return inner1 (x, AREC1P);
+--     end case4x;
+--  As can be seen in this example, the index numbers following AREC in the
+--  generated names avoid confusion between AREC names at different levels.
+-------------------------
+-- Name Disambiguation --
+-------------------------
+--  As described above, the translation scheme would raise issues when the
+--  code generator did the actual unnesting if identically named nested
+--  subprograms exist. Similarly overloading would cause a naming issue.
+--  In fact, the expanded code includes qualified names which eliminate this
+--  problem. We omitted the qualification from the exapnded examples above
+--  for simplicity. But to see this in action, consider this example:
+--    function Mnames return Boolean is
+--       procedure Inner is
+--          procedure Inner is
+--          begin
+--             null;
+--          end;
+--       begin
+--          Inner;
+--       end;
+--       function F (A : Boolean) return Boolean is
+--       begin
+--          return not A;
+--       end;
+--       function F (A : Integer) return Boolean is
+--       begin
+--          return A > 42;
+--       end;
+--    begin
+--       Inner;
+--       return F (42) or F (True);
+--    end;
+--  The expanded code actually looks like:
+--    function mnames return boolean is
+--       procedure mnames__inner is
+--          procedure mnames__inner__inner is
+--          begin
+--             null;
+--             return;
+--          end mnames__inner__inner;
+--       begin
+--          mnames__inner__inner;
+--          return;
+--       end mnames__inner;
+--       function mnames__f (a : boolean) return boolean is
+--       begin
+--          return not a;
+--       end mnames__f;
+--       function mnames__f__2 (a : integer) return boolean is
+--       begin
+--          return a > 42;
+--       end mnames__f__2;
+--    begin
+--       mnames__inner;
+--       return mnames__f__2 (42) or mnames__f (true);
+--    end mnames;
+--  As can be seen from studying this example, the qualification deals both
+--  with the issue of clashing names (mnames__inner, mnames__inner__inner),
+--  and with overloading (mnames__f, mnames__f__2).
+--  In addition, the declarations of ARECnT and ARECnPT get moved to the
+--  outer level when we actually generate C code, so we suffix these names
+--  with the corresponding entity name to make sure they are unique.
+---------------------------
+-- Terminology for Calls --
+---------------------------
+--  The level of a subprogram in the nest being analyzed is defined to be
+--  the level of nesting, so the outer level subprogram (the one passed to
+--  Unnest_Subprogram) is 1, subprograms immediately nested within this
+--  outer level subprogram have a level of 2, etc.
+--  Calls within the nest being analyzed are of three types:
+--    Downward call: this is a call from a subprogram to a subprogram that
+--    is immediately nested with in the caller, and thus has a level that
+--    is one greater than the caller. It is a fundamental property of the
+--    nesting structure and visibility that it is not possible to make a
+--    call from level N to level M, where M is greater than N + 1.
+--    Parallel call: this is a call from a nested subprogram to another
+--    nested subprogram that is at the same level.
+--    Upward call: this is a call from a subprogram to a subprogram that
+--    encloses the caller. The level of the callee is less than the level
+--    of the caller, and there is no limit on the difference, e.g. for an
+--    uplevel call, a subprogram at level 5 can call one at level 2 or even
+--    the outer level subprogram at level 1.
+-----------
+-- Subps --
+-----------
+--  Table to record subprograms within the nest being currently analyzed.
+--  Entries in this table are made for each subprogram expanded, and do not
+--  get cleared as we complete the expansion, since we want the table info
+--  around in Cprint for the actual unnesting operation. Subps_First in this
+--  unit records the starting entry in the table for the entries for Subp
+--  and this is also recorded in the Subps_Index field of the outer level
+--  subprogram in the nest. The last subps index for the nest can be found
+--  in the Subp_Entry Last field of this first entry.
+subtype SI_Type is Nat;
+--  Index type for the table
+Subps_First : SI_Type;
+--  Record starting index for entries in the current nest (this is the table
+--  index of the entry for Subp itself, and is recorded in the Subps_Index
+--  field of the entity for this subprogram).
+type Subp_Entry is record
+Ent : Entity_Id;
+--  Entity of the subprogram
+Bod : Node_Id;
+--  Subprogram_Body node for this subprogram
+Lev : Nat;
+--  Subprogram level (1 = outer subprogram (Subp argument), 2 = nested
+--  immediately within this outer subprogram etc.)
+Reachable : Boolean;
+--  This flag is set True if there is a call path from the outer level
+--  subprogram to this subprogram. If Reachable is False, it means that
+--  the subprogram is declared but not actually referenced. We remove
+--  such subprograms from the tree, which simplifies our task, because
+--  we don't have to worry about e.g. uplevel references from such an
+--  unreferenced subpogram, which might require (useless) activation
+--  records to be created. This is computed by setting the outer level
+--  subprogram (Subp itself) as reachable, and then doing a transitive
+--  closure following all calls.
+Uplevel_Ref : Nat;
+--  The outermost level which defines entities which this subprogram
+--  references either directly or indirectly via a call. This cannot
+--  be greater than Lev. If it is equal to Lev, then it means that the
+--  subprogram does not make any uplevel references and that thus it
+--  does not need an activation record pointer passed. If it is less than
+--  Lev, then an activation record pointer is needed, since there is at
+--  least one uplevel reference. This is computed by initially setting
+--  Uplevel_Ref to Lev for all subprograms. Then on the initial tree
+--  traversal, decreasing Uplevel_Ref for an explicit uplevel reference,
+--  and finally by doing a transitive closure that follows calls (if A
+--  calls B and B has an uplevel reference to level X, then A references
+--  level X indirectly).
+Declares_AREC : Boolean;
+--  This is set True for a subprogram which include the declarations
+--  for a local activation record to be passed on downward calls. It
+--  is set True for the target level of an uplevel reference, and for
+--  all intervening nested subprograms. For example, if a subprogram X
+--  at level 5 makes an uplevel reference to an entity declared in a
+--  level 2 subprogram, then the subprograms at levels 4,3,2 enclosing
+--  the level 5 subprogram will have this flag set True.
+Uents : Elist_Id;
+--  This is a list of entities declared in this subprogram which are
+--  uplevel referenced. It contains both objects (which will be put in
+--  the corresponding AREC activation record), and types. The types are
+--  not put in the AREC activation record, but referenced bounds (i.e.
+--  generated _FIRST and _LAST entites, and formal parameters) will be
+--  in the list in their own right.
+Last : SI_Type;
+--  This field is set only in the entry for the outer level subprogram
+--  in a nest, and records the last index in the Subp table for all the
+--  entries for subprograms in this nest.
+ARECnF : Entity_Id;
+--  This entity is defined for all subprograms which need an extra formal
+--  that contains a pointer to the activation record needed for uplevel
+--  references. ARECnF must be defined for any subprogram which has a
+--  direct or indirect uplevel reference (i.e. Reference_Level < Lev).
+ARECn   : Entity_Id;
+ARECnT  : Entity_Id;
+ARECnPT : Entity_Id;
+ARECnP  : Entity_Id;
+--  These AREC entities are defined only for subprograms for which we
+--  generate an activation record declaration, i.e. for subprograms for
+--  which the Declares_AREC flag is set True.
+ARECnU : Entity_Id;
+--  This AREC entity is the uplink component. It is other than Empty only
+--  for nested subprograms that declare an activation record as indicated
+--  by Declares_AREC being Ture, and which have uplevel references (Lev
+--  greater than Uplevel_Ref). It is the additional component in the
+--  activation record that references the ARECnF pointer (which points
+--  the activation record one level higher, thus forming the chain).
+end record;
+package Subps is new Table.Table (
+Table_Component_Type => Subp_Entry,
+Table_Index_Type     => SI_Type,
+Table_Low_Bound      => 1,
+Table_Initial        => 1000,
+Table_Increment      => 200,
+Table_Name           => "Unnest_Subps");
+--  Records the subprograms in the nest whose outer subprogram is Subp
+-----------------
+-- Subprograms --
+-----------------
+function Get_Level (Subp : Entity_Id; Sub : Entity_Id) return Nat;
+--  Sub is either Subp itself, or a subprogram nested within Subp. This
+--  function returns the level of nesting (Subp = 1, subprograms that
+--  are immediately nested within Subp = 2, etc.).
+function Subp_Index (Sub : Entity_Id) return SI_Type;
+--  Given the entity for a subprogram, return corresponding Subp's index
+procedure Unnest_Subprograms (N : Node_Id);
+--  Called to unnest subprograms. If we are in unnest subprogram mode, this
+--  is the call that traverses the tree N and locates all the library level
+--  subprograms with nested subprograms to process them.
+end Exp_Unst;

Mercurial > hg > CbC > CbC_gcc

comparison gcc/ada/exp_unst.ads @ 111:04ced10e8804