This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 07/01/2015 09:51 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
But the question is do you actually need "tm.h" -- we're in the middle of a project to better separate the front ends from the gimple optimizers from the RTL optimizers & backends.-----Original Message----- From: Joseph Myers [mailto:joseph@codesourcery.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 3:48 AM To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal Cc: law@redhat.com; GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa representation On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:* gcc/common.opt: Add the new flag ftree-path-split.All options need documenting in invoke.texi.Sure.+#include "tm.h"Why? Does some other header depend on this, or are you using a target macro?I am not using any target macro. There are many header files that includes the tm.h and also there are many tree-ssa optimization files that have included "tm.h" listing some of them tree-ssa-threadupdate.c tree-vrp.c , tree-ssa-threadedge.c.
Including "tm.h" in places where it's not really needed makes achieving and maintaining the separation harder than it should be.
In general we should only be including the header files that are actually needed.
Jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |