This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] More tree-flow.h prototypes.
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:12:18 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] More tree-flow.h prototypes.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <524B3820 dot 9070702 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc04yuCC_sJq2uU4X5SEv5qUAnKFmAt5SDVRbkigdFxaKQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <524C0A5F dot 7080900 at redhat dot com> <524C1735 dot 7070203 at redhat dot com>
Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
>On 10/02/2013 07:58 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> On 10/02/2013 04:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Andrew MacLeod
><amacleod@redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> This patch moves prototypes into gimple-fold.h (which already
>existed).
>>>> There were a few in tree-flow.h and a bunch in gimple.h. The
>>>> routines are
>>>> used frequently enough that it makes sense to include gimple-fold.h
>
>>>> from
>>>> gimple.h instead of from within each .c file that needs it.
>>>> (presumably why
>>>> the prototypes were in gimple.h to begin with). I took
>gimple-fold.h
>>>> out of
>>>> whatever .c files it was included in.
>>>>
>>>> tree-ssa-copy.h was also created for the prototypes in that file
>and
>>>> included from tree-ssa.h.
>>> These should probably be moved elsewhere (tree-ssa-copy.c is
>supposed
>>> to be the copy propagation pass file). But that can be done as
>>> followup.
>>>
>>>
>> hmm, easy enough to move them *all* to tree-ssa-propagate.[ch] right
>> now and check it in... That seems like the right place for all of
>> them and then we don't even need to create tree-ssa-copy.h...?
>>
>Like so.. and directly include tree-ssa-propagate.h in the 3 .c files
>that need it now.
>
>bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.. regressions running. Prefer
>this?
Yes.
Richard.
>Andrew