This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: struct function cleanup part I
Jan Hubicka wrote:
OK, Would crtl variant look acceptable then?
I don't mind crtl. I don't much are what it's named, and it gives us
some kind of hook for the future. I also don't mind cfun->rtl; the only
reason I suggested a separate function was so that we didn't have to
waste the pointer in cfun.
I'm not at all hung up on how this is organized. I'm just trying to
suggest that we pass the RTL information around as a pointer (whether
directly, or as something they can compute from some other parameter
they have like a FUNCTION_DECL for the function) to the functions that
need it, rather than having them access a single magic global object.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713