This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch 3/4] Separate gimple.[ch] and gimplify.[ch] - front end files
- 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>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:12:33 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] Separate gimple.[ch] and gimplify.[ch] - front end files
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5281460E dot 1070001 at redhat dot com> <52814709 dot 6080904 at redhat dot com> <CAFiYyc3xFo3KzNv8QurvoBW-Ef9=0FdbgoC5Z=U=zACPPb90gg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 11/13/2013 04:40 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
There needs to be a place which has gimple componentry that is not
related to or require a statement. gimple.h is becoming the home for
just 0gimple statements. There are 3 (for the moment) major classes
of things that are in statements and are also used by other parts of the
compiler .. Types, Decls, and Expressions. I could have split it into
those 3 files right now, but it didn't seem like that granularity was
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Andrew MacLeod <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
This one covers the front end files which included gimple.h
Bootstraps on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with no new regressions. OK?
* c-family/c-omp.c: Include gimple-expr.h instead of gimple.h.
can you explain why gimple-expr.h is not as bad as gimple.h?
(gimple-expr.h sounds oxymoronish ... but I didn't follow the thread
that ended up creating this beast, it seems a better matching name
would be gimple-tree.h ... haha).
Otherwise gimple.h -> gimplify.h indeed looks like an improvement.
I was going to call it gimple-decl.h since most of the things are decl
related... but I figured that eventually there will be all 3 files, and
its likely that gimple-expr.h will eventually include gimple-type.h and
gimple-decl.,h so just include gimple-expr.h now and have less include
turmoil eventually. Perhaps that wont be the case and gimple-decl.h
may have been a more appropriate name for now.
Its true that gimple-tree would in fact be a more appropriate name at
the moment, but these gimple-* files are the core ones I'll be changing
first, so the tree part would no longer be meaningful. the 'expr' part
is suppose to represent the abstract purpose... The stuff required to
represent an expression in gimple IL. And yes, that is currently a tree :-)