[PATCH] update a few places for the change from gimple_statement_base to gimple

[tbsaunde+gcc at tbsaunde dot org]

From: Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde+gcc@tbsaunde.org>

Hi,

This fixes up a few remaining references to gimple_statement_base that were just brought up.

bootstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, but the only non comment / doc change is gdbhooks.py, ok?

Trev

gcc/ChangeLog:

2015-09-23  Trevor Saunders  <tbsaunde+gcc@tbsaunde.org>

	* doc/gimple.texi: Update references to gimple_statement_base.
	* gdbhooks.py: Likewise.
	* gimple.h: Likewise.
---
 gcc/doc/gimple.texi | 12 ++++++------
 gcc/gdbhooks.py     |  2 +-
 gcc/gimple.h        | 10 +++++-----
 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/doc/gimple.texi b/gcc/doc/gimple.texi
index 543de90..d089d4f 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/gimple.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/gimple.texi
@@ -92,8 +92,8 @@ groups: a header describing the instruction and its locations,
 and a variable length body with all the operands. Tuples are
 organized into a hierarchy with 3 main classes of tuples.
 
-@subsection @code{gimple_statement_base} (gsbase)
-@cindex gimple_statement_base
+@subsection @code{gimple} (gsbase)
+@cindex gimple
 
 This is the root of the hierarchy, it holds basic information
 needed by most GIMPLE statements. There are some fields that
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ is then inherited from the other two tuples.
 
 @itemize @bullet
 @item @code{gsbase}
-Inherited from @code{struct gimple_statement_base}.
+Inherited from @code{struct gimple}.
 
 @item @code{def_ops}
 Array of pointers into the operand array indicating all the slots that
@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ kinds, along with their relationships to @code{GSS_} values (layouts) and
 @code{GIMPLE_} values (codes):
 
 @smallexample
-   gimple_statement_base
+   gimple
      |    layout: GSS_BASE
      |    used for 4 codes: GIMPLE_ERROR_MARK
      |                      GIMPLE_NOP
@@ -2654,7 +2654,7 @@ any new basic blocks which are necessary.
 
 The first step in adding a new GIMPLE statement code, is
 modifying the file @code{gimple.def}, which contains all the GIMPLE
-codes.  Then you must add a corresponding gimple_statement_base subclass
+codes.  Then you must add a corresponding gimple subclass
 located in @code{gimple.h}.  This in turn, will require you to add a
 corresponding @code{GTY} tag in @code{gsstruct.def}, and code to handle
 this tag in @code{gss_for_code} which is located in @code{gimple.c}.
@@ -2667,7 +2667,7 @@ in @code{gimple.c}.
 You will probably want to create a function to build the new
 gimple statement in @code{gimple.c}.  The function should be called
 @code{gimple_build_@var{new-tuple-name}}, and should return the new tuple
-as a pointer to the appropriate gimple_statement_base subclass.
+as a pointer to the appropriate gimple subclass.
 
 If your new statement requires accessors for any members or
 operands it may have, put simple inline accessors in
diff --git a/gcc/gdbhooks.py b/gcc/gdbhooks.py
index 3a62a2d..2b9a94c 100644
--- a/gcc/gdbhooks.py
+++ b/gcc/gdbhooks.py
@@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ def build_pretty_printer():
                              'cgraph_node', CGraphNodePrinter)
     pp.add_printer_for_types(['dw_die_ref'],
                              'dw_die_ref', DWDieRefPrinter)
-    pp.add_printer_for_types(['gimple', 'gimple_statement_base *',
+    pp.add_printer_for_types(['gimple', 'gimple *',
 
                               # Keep this in the same order as gimple.def:
                               'gimple_cond', 'const_gimple_cond',
diff --git a/gcc/gimple.h b/gcc/gimple.h
index 91c26b6..30b1041 100644
--- a/gcc/gimple.h
+++ b/gcc/gimple.h
@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ enum gimple_rhs_class
 };
 
 /* Specific flags for individual GIMPLE statements.  These flags are
-   always stored in gimple_statement_base.subcode and they may only be
+   always stored in gimple.subcode and they may only be
    defined for statement codes that do not use subcodes.
 
    Values for the masks can overlap as long as the overlapping values
@@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ struct GTY((tag("GSS_BIND")))
   tree vars;
 
   /* [ WORD 8 ]
-     This is different than the BLOCK field in gimple_statement_base,
+     This is different than the BLOCK field in gimple,
      which is analogous to TREE_BLOCK (i.e., the lexical block holding
      this statement).  This field is the equivalent of BIND_EXPR_BLOCK
      in tree land (i.e., the lexical scope defined by this bind).  See
@@ -744,7 +744,7 @@ struct GTY((tag("GSS_OMP_SINGLE_LAYOUT")))
 
 
 /* GIMPLE_OMP_ATOMIC_LOAD.
-   Note: This is based on gimple_statement_base, not g_s_omp, because g_s_omp
+   Note: This is based on gimple, not g_s_omp, because g_s_omp
    contains a sequence, which we don't need here.  */
 
 struct GTY((tag("GSS_OMP_ATOMIC_LOAD")))
@@ -1813,7 +1813,7 @@ gimple_set_no_warning (gimple *stmt, bool no_warning)
 
    You can learn more about the visited property of the gimple
    statement by reading the comments of the 'visited' data member of
-   struct gimple statement_base.
+   struct gimple.
  */
 
 static inline void
@@ -1832,7 +1832,7 @@ gimple_set_visited (gimple *stmt, bool visited_p)
 
    You can learn more about the visited property of the gimple
    statement by reading the comments of the 'visited' data member of
-   struct gimple statement_base.  */
+   struct gimple.  */
 
 static inline bool
 gimple_visited_p (gimple *stmt)
-- 
2.4.0