This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] The remainder of tree-flow.h refactored.
- From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:18:13 -0400
- Subject: Re: [patch] The remainder of tree-flow.h refactored.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <524EF235 dot 5080803 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc3wmp5N76QqTgBOeBvy=Eu6fj175+Xf0VwgxxNgfHzjHQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <5255781E dot 9030700 at redhat dot com> <4b19569b-6142-4b78-831b-2624431a606c at email dot android dot com> <52559D54 dot 3040601 at redhat dot com>
On 10/09/2013 02:15 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Unless maybe we should expand the gimplify module to have a
gimplfy-fe.[ch] which includes the routines the front ends require..?
tehre are 3 or 4 other ones in there I have noticed that are called from
the front ends.
On 10/09/2013 01:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Andrew MacLeod <email@example.com> wrote:
But afaik as part of gimplifying. The gimplifier is part of the
frontend-middleend interface. Lumping all of it into tree.c isn't
On 10/08/2013 06:22 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
unvisit_body isn't generic enough to warrant moving out of gimplify.c
(the only user).
Bah, now I remember.. so there *are* other users.. this routine is
called from various front ends.. fortran, c-family and cp all call it.
That is why I wanted to move it to tree.[ch]. it doesn't belong in a
gimple file.. it operates on trees and is also used by tree front
Fair enough. I'll adjust... the front end files which use that
routine will just have to include gimplify.h