GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-22)

[Daniel Berlin]

On 3/30/07, Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > The lang hook is supposed to mark the variable as addressable.
> > The lang hook should not be changing other things that have an affect
> > on the *middle end*.  No exceptions.
>
> But how is it "supposed to mark the variable as addressable"?  If this
> just means setting TREE_ADDRESSABLE, what's the point of having the hook?

It also issues language specific warnings

> And if it does something *else*, how is the middle-end supposed to
> know how to undo it?
It's not supposed to be doing other things for languages that don't
want to emit warnings (or do other front-endy things with the answer)
>
> I guess what I'm arguing for here is either the removal of the lang
> hook or the addition of one to set a decl *non-addressable*.  As far
> as I'm concerned, I think the removal is better, but both are OK with me.
>
You haven't explained what you think needs undoing in *any current
language that uses the hook*.
We shouldn't be adding hooks just because some theoretical language
that doesn't exist might want to do things we don't want it to do
*anyway*.
No wonder we have so many langhooks.