This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Ira Rosen <IRAR at il dot ibm dot com>, Dorit Nuzman <DORIT at il dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:13:36 +0200
- Subject: Re: Target macros vs. target hooks - policy/goal is hooks, isn't it?
- References: <201005261703.o4QH36S7012785@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <4BFD5766.3050709@codesourcery.com>
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>
>>> So the question is: The goal is to have hooks, not macros, right? If
>>> so, can reviewers please take care to reject patches that introduce
>>> new macros?
>>
>> I don't know to which extent this is a formal goal these days, but I
>> personally agree that it would be nice to eliminate macros.
>
> Yes, the (informally agreed) policy is to have hooks, not macros. ?There
> may be situations where that is technically impossible, but I'd expect
> those to be very rare.
Another batch of recently introduced target macros instead of target hooks:
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_COND_TAKEN_BRANCH_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_COND_NOT_TAKEN_BRANCH_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_SCALAR_STMT_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_SCALAR_LOAD_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_SCALAR_STORE_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_VEC_STMT_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_VEC_TO_SCALAR_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_SCALAR_TO_VEC_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_VEC_LOAD_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_VEC_UNALIGNED_LOAD_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_VEC_STORE_COST
tree-vectorizer.h:#ifndef TARG_VEC_PERMUTE_COST
Could the vectorizer folks please turn these into target hooks?
Ciao!
Steven