This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Conversion from fold (buildN (...)) to fold_buildN.

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Kazu Hirata <kazu at cs dot umass dot edu>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, roger at eyesopen dot com
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 07:25:26 -0800
Subject: Re: Conversion from fold (buildN (...)) to fold_buildN.
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <20050322.123834.10297830.kazu@cs.umass.edu>

Kazu Hirata wrote:

Hi,

I would like to announce that fold_buildN are now ready.

Great!

When and how do we want to do these conversion?

Currently, I am thinking about doing converting all of
"fold (buildN (...))" and "fold (build (...))" to fold_buildN as soon
as stage 2 starts, which is about one month away, so that I won't
annoy people as much.  I don't mind people starting to use fold_buildN
on new code or doing conversions on what they maintain, but I don't
think now is the right time to do the wholesale conversion.

I agree.

I think it's fine to change parts of the compiler that don't look like they will be affected by upcoming merges, like Steven's recent changes to the C++ front end. But, let's try to avoid making it harder for people who are merging major changes from branches.

Would you like fold_{unary,binary,ternary} exported?

Let's do that when and if there is something that needs to use them.

Thanks,

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304

References:
- Conversion from fold (buildN (...)) to fold_buildN.
  - From: Kazu Hirata

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]