Header files depending on tree.h (was: Add missing dependency to gcc/c-common.h)

[Mark G. Adams]

On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 16:32, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> "Mark G. Adams" <mark.g.adams@sympatico.ca> writes:
> > gcc/c-common.h has an implicit dependency on gcc/tree.h which this patch
> > makes explicit.
> >
> I'm of two minds about this change.  It is correct, in the sense that
> c-common.h certainly does make reference to lots of things from
> tree.h.  However, I cannot decide whether it is appropriate to be
> doing this for tree.h or rtl.h (which are included by almost all GCC
> source files anyway).  Also, I am not exactly enthused about
> *expanding* the set of files with a direct dependency on tree.h.

Have you had any further thoughts on whether or not tree.h (or rtl.h)
should be included in header files? As a data point, a quick grep shows
only a couple of .h files including each (with expr.h being the primary
one).

//Mark