On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Joern Rennecke <amyl...@spamcop.net> wrote: > Quoting Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: > >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Joern Rennecke <amyl...@spamcop.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> Except or the fortran/java bits (committed), this patch hasn't been >>> reviewed for five weeks: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00582.html >> >> A patch doing s/CUMULATIVE_ARGS*/cumulative_args_t/ only >> is ok. > > It's not quite that simple. The patch makes a distinction between pointers > to the target specific types CUMULATIVE_ARGS, and the target-independent > cumulative_args_t. > > Is it still OK if I selectively do the replacement where the > target-independent type is meant, and add a provisional > typedef CUMULATIVE_ARGS *cumulative_args_t to tie it together? > >> Posting compressed attached patches makes it too easy >> to not review things btw ... > > The mailing list size limits did't allow this patch to be posted > without compression. > >> After that patch the "meat" of the patch should be much much smaller >> and easier to review (if there is anything left besides the renaming?). > > It should be somewhat smaller, but there are lots of places where we have > to convert between cumulative_args_t and CUMULATIVE_ARGS *. > Were a target-independent interface is required, we need cumulative_args_t . > Where a target accesses struct components, it needs CUMULATIVE_ARGS *. > There are some places that just pass CUMULATIVE_ARGS * around, both in > rtl-centric middle-end/ rtl-optimizer code and in target code, which > could be electively converted. In general, I haven't done such optional > conversions. They could be added according to taste once the interface > has been straightened out. There is also a judgement call in each place > how closely the code is tied to the cumulative_args_t side or the > CUMULATIVE_ARGS * side.
Hmm, I see. Maybe a GWP wants to ack your patch in whole then. Ian? Thanks, Richard.
