On 10/22/2015 04:55 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/08/2015 07:37 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 10/07/2015 06:02 PM, Jeff Law wrote:

However, the tool has been run, and I've made the minor adjustments
required to the source files to make it work.  (ie, a few multi-line
comments and the fact that mul-tables.c is generated on the tile* targets.

So this is what it should look like.  I used -cp.    Other languages are
bootstrapping, and I have yet to build all the targets... that'll just
take a day.   Be nice if ada worked tho.

I can run the reduction tool over the weekend (its a long weekend here
:-) on this if you want...  the other patch is a couple of weeks out of
date anyway now.
So I'm playing with this stuff a little. I was surprised to see that the reordering script also removes duplicates.

For some dumb reason I thought that functionality was part of the header file reducer, but that's only concerned with removing stuff that's unnecessary.

Anyway, just surprised me. Not sure if it's worth splitting that functionality out or making it conditional on a flag is worth it.

It certainly helps in that I won't look at the changes and expect that headers are just reordered :-)

jeff
Yeah, the reordering removes anything which is a duplicate. The way the processing works, it was very natural to do it there, and trivial. And it seemed silly to put 2copies in a row when it reordered something.

The reducer also gets an extra order of complexity when it has to deal with duplicate header files.. ie, no longer does a #include become a unique thing that I can hash and build a dictionary on... , it has to remember whether it was the first or second or nth instance, and it was just much much simpler to make it only have to deal with removing #Include "header.h". The original version dealt with multiples OK, but I eventually removed it on one of the iterations as being superfluous with the addition of the ordering tool.

It was actually only at the 11th hour I decided to keep the ordering tool and reducer as seperate tools.. they were going to be combined, but it seemed better to leave them separate.

Andrew


Reply via email to