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: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?

From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
Cc: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Ben Elliston <bje at au1 dot ibm dot com>, Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Weigand Ulrich <Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:37:24 +0200
Subject: Re: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?
References: <AANLkTinUNkZQrGJ0VoyuRpHrA4T0XYcaeLnfkmNlnUjC@mail.gmail.com> <201005261703.o4QH36S7012785@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>

On 05/26/2010 07:03 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:

This is the reason why we implemented TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_KEYWORDS as
macro (note that all the other address-space related back-end
callbacks were already implemented as hooks to begin with).

One nice cleanup would be to merge the per-address-space hooks with the generic ones when possible (legitimate_address_p and legitimize_address in particular). I started doing the work last year by hookizing the two relevant target macros, but didn't have time to do the second part.

Paolo

References:
- Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?
  - From: Ulrich Weigand

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