Header files depending on tree.h

[Zack Weinberg]

"Mark G. Adams" <mark.g.adams@sympatico.ca> writes:

>> 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).

No further thoughts; was hoping to hear from other people.

zw