This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch 1/3] Flatten gimple.h
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:07:54 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] Flatten gimple.h
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <528E4DAD dot 6080409 at redhat dot com> <528E5E72 dot 2010708 at redhat dot com> <528E6755 dot 2010304 at redhat dot com>
On 11/21/13 13:04, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I think that's basically what's happened in the past, we just installed
everything, or close to everything.
On 11/21/2013 02:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/21/13 11:15, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Is there anything in particular one needs to do for plugins? I thought I
saw a patch somewhere that changed something in the Makefile, but don't
know if that is actually required since I never did that for any of the
others. Any plugin which used gimple.h probably needs a few more
We need to make sure the header files that are needed by plugins
appear in Makefile.in::PLUGIN_HEADERS so that they get installed in a
place where plugins can find them.
stupid question perhaps, but aren't most header files a potential
plugin header? Why don't we just install them all...
One way to find out would be to look at the set of .h files from
gcc-4.8/gcc and look at what ultimately ends up in PLUGIN_HEADERS. I
bet they're pretty damn close :-)
I wouldn't expect much fallout until after we started putting release
candidates out there. That doesn't mean we should wait until then to
address the problem though ;-)
No one has complained yet, but in theory any .h I split up over the
past couple of months has the potential to be required... maintaining
that macro in Makefile.in seems kinda lame now that we don't maintain
the macros for building. I'm sure its rotted already.