On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:41 AM Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On September 21, 2019 12:28:57 PM GMT+02:00, Christian Biesinger > <cbiesin...@google.com> wrote: > >On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:22 PM Richard Biener > ><richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On September 21, 2019 11:12:38 AM GMT+02:00, Christian Biesinger via > >gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> >Hello, > >> > > >> >I would like to move hash-table.h, hash-map.h and related files > >> >to libiberty, so that GDB can make use of it. > >> > > >> >I see that gcc already has a C++ file in include/ (unique-ptr.h), > >> >which I understand is libiberty. > >> > > >> >However, this patch is not complete yet (for a start, it doesn't > >> >compile). Before I go further down this road, is this acceptable > >> >in principle to the gcc/libiberty maintainers? > >> > > >> >(the bulk of the patch is including vec.h in a lot of files, > >> >because hash-table.h previously included it. It doesn't > >> >actually use it, and I didn't think it was necessary to > >> >move that to libiberty as well, so I removed that include > >> >and instead am adding it to all the files that now don't > >> >compile.) > >> > >> The bulk seems to be hash_table to hash_table_ggc renaming. Can you > >explain? > > > >Yeah, sure. If hash-table.h lives in libiberty, I wanted to reduce the > >dependencies on other headers. GCC's garbage collector seems like > >something that does not belong there, so I moved this create function > >to a separate header, which required renaming it since it now can't be > >part of the same class. (the other option would be some kind of #ifdef > >GCC thing, but that seemed ugly to me) > > As long as gengtype can still pick up everything correctly via the GTY > annotations that's probably OK.
OK, I've decided to give up on this project for now -- there are too many GCC dependencies in this file. But I may try forking the file for GDB. Christian
