This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Redundant tree inliner code?
- From: Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>
- To: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Stuart Hastings <stuart at apple dot com>, Ira Ruben <ira at apple dot com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:28:50 -0800
- Subject: Re: Redundant tree inliner code?
On Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 04:06 , Neil Booth wrote:
> Ziemowit Laski wrote:-
>
>> A recursive grep for deferred_fns (which I believe came in with the new
>> tree inlining recently) shows that the variable is defined in three
>> different places. Is there a reason for this, or could it just go
>> into c-common.[ch]?
>>
>> We stumbled across this while working on our persistent front-end, and
>> the current "distribution" of deferred_fns makes life extra hellish
>> for us. :)
>
> I have a patch towards remedying this that is still waiting approval:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-11/msg01924.html
I see that you've left the C++ portion alone. Is this because the
deferred_fns
chain cannot reasonably be shared between the C++ and C/ObjC
front-ends? If so,
then the Objective-C++ front-end would have to have _two_ chains in it,
each
oblivious of the other. And if that is so, then perhaps the ObjC
front-end should
have two chains as well, for symmetry (which would imply that your
C/ObjC unification
patch might not be needed after all). What do you think?
--Zem
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Ziemowit Laski Apple Computer, Inc.
zlaski@apple.com 2 Infinite Loop, MS 302-4SN
+1.408.974.6229 Fax .1344 Cupertino, CA 95014-2085