This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: RFC - Next refactoring steps

On 09/05/2013 09:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Andrew MacLeod <> wrote:
Now that tree.h is split in two, there are some follow up things that will
facilitate the deforestation of gimple.  I've also thrown in a couple of
structuring issues for good measure.

What are your thoughts on these subjects?
Jumping in from the side I suggest you start de-foresting existing headers
where they say

/* In foobar.c */

to simply add a foobar.h with the contents that follow.  Bonus points if you
actually verify all definitions from X.c are declaed in X.h (the /* In ... */
annotations are hopelessly out-of-date in some cases).

More bonus points if you avoid pass-xyz.h files but instead move code
useful to multiple passes to more appropriate places.  That said, definitely
avoid pass-xyz.h ;)


Yes, well that's high on the list too, I just hadnt given it a lot of thought yet. Yes, thisbis probably the right thing to do. However, The functions in tree.c that I need would then end up in tree.h... which isnt good for me :-) we could have a tree-proto.h for just this one file or something like that. I dont think tree-core is the right place, but...

Anyway, that would resolve the tree-checking and place to put protoypes issue just fine. I'd definitely go for the bonus points :-). I also think a lot of include files are including a lot of crud they dont need too... In glancing at those 4 .h files that include tree.h, they have along list of includes, most of which are also included in the .c files. And many of those have #includes they don't need I bet. I'd have alook at that on the way through the file too.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]