On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because it's otherwise almost unused. No "usual" gimple pass builds > up record types. What's the point in introducing the abstraction if > most of the users cannot use it? There may be few users on the gimple side, but you are mixing two orthogonal issues. Having a similar facility for FEs may be desirable, but not *this* one. Perhaps we could have a parent class provide a more generalized set of services. Each front end could use it or derive from it for its own use. The gimple version could do the same. Could that work? Diego.
