This is the mail archive of the 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: Redundant tree inliner code?

On Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 04:06 , Neil Booth wrote:

> Ziemowit Laski wrote:-
>> A recursive grep for deferred_fns (which I believe came in with the new
>> tree inlining recently) shows that the variable is defined in three
>> different places.  Is there a reason for this, or could it just go
>> into c-common.[ch]?
>> We stumbled across this while working on our persistent front-end, and
>> the current "distribution" of deferred_fns makes life extra hellish
>> for us. :)
> I have a patch towards remedying this that is still waiting approval:

I see that you've left the C++ portion alone.  Is this because the 
chain cannot reasonably be shared between the C++ and C/ObjC 
front-ends?  If so,
then the Objective-C++ front-end would have to have _two_ chains in it, 
oblivious of the other.  And if that is so, then perhaps the ObjC 
front-end should
have two chains as well, for symmetry (which would imply that your 
C/ObjC unification
patch might not be needed after all).  What do you think?


> --------------------------------------------------------------
Ziemowit Laski                   Apple Computer, Inc.                 2 Infinite Loop, MS 302-4SN
+1.408.974.6229  Fax .1344       Cupertino, CA  95014-2085

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