This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Ada] Fix bogus noreturn warning
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
<lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
> How can anyone know that they are trespassing the interface
> between FEs and the rest of the compiler when such interface is not
> defined anywhere.
Defining an interface is what I've been trying to do, to some extend,
with the project to remove include files from the front ends and/or
move function prototypes around to files that front ends do need (e.g.
tree.h).
But people have got this thing called common sense, and it wouldn't
hurt to use it sometimes. E.g. when, ever, does a front end need to
know about hard register sets?
> Why tree-flow.h should not be allowed?
Do front ends perform GIMPLE data flow? No. So they should not need
tree-flow.h. Therefore the fact that front ends currently have to
include tree-flow.h is a problem.
I was hoping people would take the time to move a function out of a
header file if it is a middle-end header and a function is defined
there that is needed in a front end.
But, as usual, GCC developers prefer quick fixes over doing a thing
properly. Proof once more that hope is postponed disappointment,
especially when it comes to GCC development.
Ciao!
Steven