This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 029/236] rtl_data.x_parm_birth_insn is an insn
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:13:24 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 029/236] rtl_data.x_parm_birth_insn is an insn
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1407345815-14551-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <1407345815-14551-30-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <53EB6BD3 dot 6020304 at redhat dot com> <1407949729 dot 28418 dot 140 dot camel at surprise>
On 08/13/14 11:08, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 07:44 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/06/14 11:20, David Malcolm wrote:
* function.h (struct rtl_data): Strengthen field
"x_parm_birth_insn" from rtx to rtx_insn *.
* function.c (struct assign_parm_data_all): Strengthen fields
"first_conversion_insn" and "last_conversion_insn" from rtx to
OK. I think at this point any patch which merely changes the type of
some variable or in a signature from rtx to rtx_insn (or any of the
concrete passes) is considered trivial enough to go forward without
Presumably you meant "subclasses" here, right?
That applies to patches in this series, additions you may need to make
due to changes in the tree since you last rebased and further
strengthening you or anyone else may want to tackle.
Heh - indeed, patch #30 needs a trivial fixup of the return type of the
that was added in r212171, from rtx to rtx_note *.
[yes, I'm working on rebasing it all against today's trunk right now]