Re: include tree.h instead of tree-core.h in expr.h

[Prathamesh Kulkarni <bilbotheelffriend at gmail dot com>]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 12/18/2013 08:08 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> <bilbotheelffriend@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would it be better to include tree.h instead of tree-core.h (tree.h
>>>> includes tree-core.h anyway), or shall I leave these macros untouched
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> Better leave these macros intact for now. We are trying to flatten out
>>> the #include tree. Adding tree.h to another header goes in the
>>> opposite direction.
>>>
>>> Please add a note describing the conflict.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>  Looks like function.c is the primary user of {ADD,SUB}_PARM_SIZE, with a
>> single use of ADD_PARM_SIZE in calls.c    I'd suggest moving both new
>> functions to function.c and exporting the protoype for add_parm_size() in
>> function.h.  calls.c already include function.h.
>>
>> I can't imagine that call to ADD_PARM_SIZE in calls.c having much impact on
>> compile time...
>
> Ah, yes, if the usage pattern of these macros is so simple, that's a
> better option.
>
>
> Diego.

ADD_PARM_SIZE is called at 4 places from the following callers:
   File           Function                                   Line
0 calls.c       initialize_argument_information   1356
ADD_PARM_SIZE (*args_size, args[i].locate.size.var);
1 function.c  assign_parm_is_stack_parm      2566    ADD_PARM_SIZE
(all->stack_args_size, data->locate.size.var);
2 function.c  locate_and_pad_parm                3866    ADD_PARM_SIZE
(locate->size, sizetree);
3 function.c  pad_below                                3959
ADD_PARM_SIZE (*offset_ptr, s2);

As suggested by Andrew, I shall move them into function.c and export
their prototype in function.h

Thanks and Regards,
Prathamesh