This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] Create gimple-expr..[ch] ... was Re: RFC: gimple.[ch] break apart
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- To: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Basile Starynkevitch <basile at starynkevitch dot net>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:06:35 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch] Create gimple-expr..[ch] ... was Re: RFC: gimple.[ch] break apart
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5271CBF9 dot 2070005 at redhat dot com> <52791C46 dot 6090909 at redhat dot com> <20131107103646 dot GA26387 at ours dot starynkevitch dot net> <527B9462 dot 4040305 at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 05:36 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:26:46AM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>>
>>> I decided to name the new file gimple-expr.[ch] instead of
>>> gimple-decl.... This will eventually split into gimple-type.[ch],
>>> gimple-decl.[ch], and gimple-expr.[ch].
>>
>>
>> Since we are adding *new* C++ files, can't we please name them *.cc
>> for the implementation part, so at least create gimple-expr.h and
>> gimple-expr.cc but not gimple-expr.c, please!
>
> Assuming we put this into stage 1 next year, I would imagine we'd rename a
> number of things, including .cc, drop the tree-* from the tree-ssa-blah.[c]h
> files, etc etc. There have been a few things people have suggested
> renaming... I think if we do renaming, they ought to be all at one time to
> minimize the pain.
>
> At the moment, the new gimple-* files I'm creating are still C, so they are
> .c files...
Agreed. When we start shuffling files around seems a better time.
Doing both operations at once will be easier than going through two
phases of naming changes.
Diego.