plugins header file

[Jeff Law]

On 10/14/14 13:40, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 09/15/2014 02:18 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> During the re-architecture session at Cauldron, I mentioned the
>> possibility of introducing a plugin-headers.h.
>>
>> This would be a file which plugins could use which would protect them
>> somewhat from header file restructuring.  The idea is that it includes
>> all the common things plugins need, (like gimple.h, rtl.h,
>> most-of-the-world.h, etc etc),.  When header files are restructured,
>> that file would also be adjusted so that the correct include order is
>> still maintained.  This could also give plugins a little more
>> stability across releases since header files do come and go..
>>
>>  I am about to start another round of flattening and shuffling, so
>> figured this might be a good time to introduce it.  Any of you plugin
>> users have a list of includes you want to see in it, or better yet,
>> provide me with a plugin-headers.h? ( Out of curiosity, is there a
>> reason gcc-plugins.h doesn't include a pile of these common things? or
>> is that simply to avoid bringing in the world?) Or would you rather
>> just continue to deal with the pain of header file name
>> changing/content shuffling?  or is there a different solution proposal?
>>
>>
>>  Andrew
> Not a lot of response... just one...
>
> so I'll ask a different question before I check in the function.h
> flattening patch which has been approved...
>
> Rather than a new file, is there any reason not to include most of the
> gcc world that we care might about in the current gcc-plugin.h file?  it
> includes:
> #include "config.h"
> #include "system.h"
> #include "coretypes.h"
> #include "highlev-plugin-common.h"
> #include "hashtab.h"
>
> so I presume most plugins include this file.  if we added a set of
> includes to this (even just the minimal required to compile the file
> being flattened) ,  flattening might be transparent to most plugins...
I don't see either being particular better than the other.  So, whatever 
seems to be easiest is fine with me.  But then again, I've never written 
a plugin.  Perhaps ask David directly -- he may miss this thread, but I 
wouldn't be surprised if he can give some relevant advice.

jeff